Arnelle

Arnelle v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 3d 693·190 Cal. Rptr. 490·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1561
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 6, 1983Civ. 50622California1,609 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Appellant H. Jesse Arnelle appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after respondent’s demurrer to appellant’s first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend.

Appellant was appointed pursuant to Penal Code section 987, subdivision (b), to represent an indigent defendant charged with the murder of a police officer. No compensation for appellant was agreed upon in advance, and after the trial appellant submitted a petition for an order compensating him pursuant to section 987.2, subdivision (a). Appellant declared that he had spent over 200 hours in court and Over 1,300 hours in trial preparation and other out-of-court activities, to which he attached a reasonable value of $39,732.10. The trial judge found that $12,362.16 was a reasonable amount for the compensation due appellant. That smaller amount was paid to appellant.

Appellant then filed a complaint for the remainder ($27,369.94), alleging three causes of action: quantum meruit, breach of oral contract and breach of implied contract. The court, finding that appellant’s complaint failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action, sustained respondent’s demurrer but granted appellant leave…

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.