Rhue

Rhue v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 5th 892·225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 825
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 28, 2017No. B283248California972 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Zelon, J.

*894 In California, litigants who comply with relevant statutes and rules have a right to appeal an adverse judgment; the trial court may not arbitrarily deny a litigant that right. In this matter, the trial court refused a timely request by petitioner to preserve a record so that she might appeal. Because the trial court abused its discretion in doing so, we grant the petitioner's request for a writ of mandate and order the preparation of a settled statement.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Petitioner Harolyn Rhue sued Signet Domain, LLC and Sam Nam (real parties in interest) in August 2015, in an action to quiet title. Neither of the real parties appeared in the action, and, in December 2015, the court entered their default. In May 2016, the trial court, on its own motion, set a hearing to dismiss the complaint. Two months later, the court vacated the default against Sam Nam, who still had not appeared, and offered Rhue an opportunity to amend her complaint. In August, on Rhue's motion for reconsideration, the court denied the motion and granted judgment on the pleadings against Rhue. The court's order stated no reason for its action.

*895 Rhue moved to obtain a settled…

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.