Leahy

Leahy v. Hunt CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 2026C101667California2,115 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mauro, J.

BACKGROUND

Leahy filed a complaint against her former attorney Daniel Hunt, and Hunt demurred to the first amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. According to a June 11, 20241 trial court order, Leahy filed a disability accommodation request

1 All subsequent dates refer to 2024 unless otherwise indicated.

1 on May 24 (the May 24 request), indicating that she was deaf and needed a closed captioner for a June 13 hearing on Hunt’s demurrer. The trial court indicated that it had granted the May 24 request for a closed captioner, and that it had reserved a closed captioner to provide real-time reporting at the June 13 hearing. According to the trial court, in her May 24 request, Leahy also asked for a court reporter and a certified transcript, but the trial court had ruled that those requests did not fall within California Rules of Court, rule 1.1002 because they related to memorializing the hearing for future use, not accessing or participating in the hearing itself; nevertheless, Leahy could make a separate request for a court reporter and a certified transcript. In a subsequent disability accommodation request signed by Leahy on June 6 and filed on June 11 (the June…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.