Hendrix

Hendrix v. Superior Court

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813·191 Cal. App. 4th 889·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 18
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 2011No. E050065California2,067 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKinster, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs and appellants, Leisha Hendrix, Kathy Sellers, Jane Folmer, Eva Sager, and Phillip Livoni (collectively referred to as plaintiffs), all of whom are official court reporters employed by defendant and respondent, the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (hereafter the Court), from the judgment entered against them and in favor of the Court and defendant and respondent, Tressa Sloan Kentner, the Court’s executive officer, on plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandate. 1 In that petition plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to pay them at the higher rate specified in Government Code section 69950, subdivision (a) any time plaintiffs had to recreate a previously transcribed reporter’s transcript. In the published portion of this opinion we hold that the higher rate of compensation applies only to the first transcription of the reporter’s notes. In the unpublished portion we hold that plaintiffs also failed to establish a contractual right to the higher rate of compensation. Therefore we will affirm the judgment.

*892 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is the third appeal in this matter, which began in 2006 when plaintiffs Hendrix, Sellers,…

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.