Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry

Caution
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 295·219 Cal. App. 3d 9·267 Cal. Rptr. 896
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1990Docket Nos. A039701, A039830California6,743 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

Appellants in these consolidated appeals are the Asbestos Claims Facility (ACF) and its members, several asbestos manufacturers who are defendants in numerous asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death actions filed in the Superior Courts of Alameda County (the Alameda court) and the City and County of San Francisco (the San Francisco court). Respondent is Berry & Berry, an Oakland law firm. In complex asbestos litigation in both counties, the trial courts issued similar general orders appointing respondent as designated defense counsel to coordinate the scheduling of numerous discovery-related activities on behalf of all defendants. Both orders provided for the allocation of costs and fees for respondent’s services among all defendants in a given case. After a fee dispute arose between respondent and appellants, the trial courts in both counties granted respondent’s motions to compel appellants to pay certain past due bills immediately and all future bills within 30 days. Appellants have appealed from both orders.

We have concluded that the designated defense counsel system created by the trial courts’ general orders did not interfere with appellants’ right to…

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.