City of Los Angeles v. Vaughn

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KINCAID; FOX, P. J., and ASHBURN
• Citation: City of Los Angeles v. Vaughn, 7 Cal.Rptr. 304 (Cal. App. 1960)
• Decision Date: 24 August 1960
• Parties: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James E. VAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 24669.

Page 304

7 Cal.Rptr. 304

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James E. VAUGHN, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 24669.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Aug. 24, 1960.

Hearing Granted Oct. 19, 1960.

Opinion vacated 10 Cal.Rptr. 457.

Anson, Gleaves, Dowds & Larson, for appellant.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones, James A. Doherty, Asst. City Attys., Los Angeles, and Robert C. Summers, Deputy City Atty., Los Angeles, for respondent.

KINCAID, Justice pro tem.

The defendant Vaughn, a court reporter, appeals from a judgment rendered against him for certain delinquent business license taxes adjudged to be owing by him to the city of Los Angeles.

After defendant's general demurrer to the complaint of said city for recovery from him of said business license taxes was overruled, defendant did not answer and permitted judgment to be rendered against him by court after default for the amount of said business license taxes.

The defendant was and is a duly appointed court reporter of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The essence of the city's complaint was that the defendant, within the city of Los Angeles, had prepared transcripts of testimony and trial proceedings for parties to civil actions in which defendant had acted as official court reporter; that he had collected fees from various parties for preparing such transcripts; that he had failed and neglected to pay business license taxes allegedly owing to the city of Los Angeles by reason thereof and that said business license taxes and become due and were delinquent.

Section 21.190 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides in part that every person engaged in any trade, calling, occupation, vocation, profession or other means of livelihood, as an independent contractor and not as an employee of another, and not specifically licensed by other provisions of said municipal code relating to business license and license fees in connection therewith, shall pay a license fee of $12 per calendar year for the first $12,000 or less of his gross receipts, and in addition thereto, the sum of $1 per year for each additional $1,000 or fractional part thereof, of gross receipts in excess of $12,000.

Defendant contends that in preparing such transcripts and collecting fees therefor he was not engaged in any trade or occupation as an independent contractor but that, on the contrary, he had acted in preparing such transcripts as the employee of another, i. e., as an employee of the superior court of which he was an official court reporter.

The sole question presented is whether, in preparing such transcripts at the request of parties to civil actions and collecting fees therefor, defendant engaged in any trade, occupation or other means of livelihood as an independent contractor and not as an employee of said superior court.

We have reached the conclusions, for the reasons hereinafter stated, that official court reporters operate in a dual capacity; that they operate not as employees of the court but rather engage in business as independent contractors when they prepare transcripts of testimony and trial proceedings at request of parties to civil actions and collect fees therefor; that the defendant was liable for payment of the business license taxes in preparing and collecting fees for such transcripts as alleged in the city's complaint and that therefore the judgment herein should be affirmed.

Such official court reporters are no doubt to be regarded and considered as employees of the court appointing them and exercising control over them when they are engaged in performing various functions, including serving as official reporters at trials for statutory salary compensation. §§ 69894.1, 72705, Gov.Code. On the other hand, they cannot reasonably be regarded or considered to be employees of the court when they are engaged in preparing reporter's transcripts at the request of parties to civil actions and are collecting compensation therefor from the parties. § 69953, Gov.Code.

Courts have all will exercise only minimal control over reporters with reference to preparation and furnishing of reporter's transcripts in civil cases. The trial court in a case on appeal has power to determine whether appellant has complied with all necessary legal requirements to secure a transcript and, if so, to see to it that the reporter complies with the law and prepares and files the transcript. But the court in that case has no jurisdiction to pass on disputes between the reporter and the appellant over the fees charged therefor and the question of the validity of an agreement entered between them relative to such fees must necessarily be resolved in a separate action. Summers v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 295, 1 Cal.Rptr. 324; Williams v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 656, 665, 96 P.2d 334; Gjurich v. Fieg, 160 Cal. 331, 116 P. 745.

Defendant urges...