Appellant client sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which, in an interpleader action, awarded percentage shares in the proceeds derived from a global settlement of former litigation and awarded attorney fees to respondents, another client who asserted a claim in the former litigation, several attorneys, and a referral provider.
The referral provider recruited counsel for the clients in exchange for a contingent fee. The clients later retained another attorney who negotiated a global settlement agreement and who sought to resolve disputes by way of interpleader. The court held that the client did not waive his right to appeal by accepting a distribution of proceeds because he consistently pursued his objections. Demurrers were properly sustained to the client's cross-complaints alleging conversion, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty because interpleading funds could not give rise to tort liability and because any damages were speculative. The client was not entitled to a jury trial under Cal. Const., art. I, § 16 or Code Civ. Proc., § 592, because interpleader was an equitable action. A prior ruling that the referral service was illegal under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6155, had collateral estoppel effect as to the referral provider only, and the evidence did not show that any attorney knowingly accepted an illegal referral. The attorneys' recovery did not depend on the validity of their liens under Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-300, because the contingent fee agreements were valid and severable. The parties were represented by their own California small business attorney.
The court reversed the judgment in favor of the referral provider, reversed the award of attorney fees to the referral provider, remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the amount of compensation due to the referral provider, and affirmed in all other respects.
Plaintiff sub-contractors appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of Yuba County (California) that limited their recovery to the unpaid remainder of the contract price in their breach of contract case against defendant. Defendant surety company appealed the award of attorney fees.
Plaintiff sub-contractors sued defendant surety company for contractor's failure to pay contract price. Damages were awarded for unpaid contract amount, interest, and attorney fees. Plaintiffs appealed the award and defendant appealed the award of attorney fees. The issues on appeal were whether the surety on a Capehart Act bond could be liable for money in excess of contract price actually owed by its principal; and if so, whether plaintiffs had established their rights to excess amounts. The court affirmed the judgment restricting damages to the contract price. The court held that because plaintiffs had completed work, their exclusive remedy was the unpaid contract price and expenses arising from the breach. The court reversed the award of attorney fees because state law prohibited them. The case was remanded, however, because it was reversible error for the trial court to fail to make findings as to plaintiffs' claim of breach, as they were essential to its claim for excessive damages.
Plaintiffs' appeal of judgment restricting recovery was denied because plaintiffs were limited to the recovery of the unpaid contract amount. The case was remanded because the trial court's failure to make findings concerning plaintiffs' breach claim was reversible error. The award of attorney fees was reversed because state law prohibited them.
