Burd v. Barkley Court Reporters, Inc.
B271694
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Tara R. Burd (plaintiff), an attorney, hired Barkley Court Reporters (defendant) to serve as an official reporter pro tempore for a June 27, 2013 Los Angeles Superior Court hearing and paid roughly $587 for the transcript. Fees included per‑page charges, per diem, PDF and delivery fees, and a transcript production fee.
- Burd sued alleging violation of Government Code sections 69950 and 69954 (statutory transcription rates) and related UCL claims, seeking class relief, damages, and costs.
- Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing sections 69950 and 69954 apply only to court‑employed official reporters, not privately retained reporters serving pro tempore.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion and entered judgment for defendant. Burd appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory construction de novo and examined article 9 of title 8 (Gov. Code) and related statutes and administrative guidance. The court reversed, holding the statutory transcription rates apply to any court reporter producing transcripts of superior‑court civil proceedings, whether court‑employed or privately retained pro tempore.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Gov. Code §§ 69950 and 69954 apply to privately retained reporters serving as official reporters pro tempore? | Sections 69950 and 69954 impose statutory transcription rates on any reporter producing a court transcript; no exclusion for private pro tempore reporters. | The fee statutes apply only to official reporters employed by the court; privately retained pro tempore reporters are not covered. | Statutory transcription rates apply to reporters generally, including privately retained reporters appointed pro tempore. |
| Does article 9’s use of “official reporter” and separate references to pro tempore reporters imply a rates exemption for private reporters? | The statutes’ plain language is controlling and does not differentiate; section 69947’s reference to “official reporter” does not limit §§ 69950/69954. | Distinctions elsewhere in article 9 and county‑specific statutes show legislature intended to regulate only court‑employed reporters. | The statutory scheme and related provisions support applying article 9 rates to pro tempore reporters; county statutes expressly apply article 9 to pro tempore reporters. |
| Does the 1992 enactment of § 68086 (authorizing privately retained pro tempore reporters) mean the 1953 rate statutes cannot cover private reporters? | Legislature is presumed to have enacted § 68086 aware of existing law; absence of an express transcription fee exemption for private reporters indicates coverage. | Because § 68086 postdates the rate statutes, privately retained reporters weren’t contemplated and thus shouldn’t be subject to rate limits. | Legislative acquiescence and rules (including Judicial Council rule 2.956) show private reporters serving pro tempore are within the article 9 scheme. |
| Do administrative interpretations or public‑policy concerns (freedom of contract, reporter shortages) justify exempting private pro tempore reporters from statutory rates? | Administrative agency (Court Reporters Board) long interpreted §§ 69950/69954 to apply to pro tempore reporters; policy concerns do not override plain statutory language. | Imposing statutory rates burdens freedom of contract and may deter private reporters from serving, harming court operations. | The Board’s consistent interpretation merits deference; freedom of contract is subject to legislative regulation and any practical problems are for the legislature to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, 135 Cal.App.4th 1281 (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Los Angeles v. Vaughn, 55 Cal.2d 198 (official reporter is an officer/employee of the superior court)
- Cramer v. Superior Court, 130 Cal.App.4th 42 (discussing official reporters and pro tempore reporters employed by court)
- Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital, 31 Cal.4th 709 (ascertaining legislative intent; textual analysis)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (statutory language as best evidence of intent)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (administrative interpretation warrants consideration)
- Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, 18 Cal.3d 190 (express exceptions in statute preclude implied others)
- Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (ministerial officers of the court; reporters subject to court jurisdiction)
- Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 96 Cal.App.4th 117 (policy or practical problems with statutory scheme are for legislature to remedy)