Padilla

Padilla v. McClellan

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 2140·2001 Daily Journal DAR 12191·93 Cal. App. 4th 1100·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9762
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2001G027300California2,525 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Objector Catherine M. Osier appeals from an order allocating attorney fees as part of a minor’s compromise. She contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to divide attorney fees between her and claimant G. John Jansen. She also maintains the court’s allocation of fees was improper under a theory of quantum meruit in that claimant’s services were of little or no benefit to the minor. The trial court did not err either in finding it had jurisdiction or in its fee allocation, and we affirm.

Facts

The parents of plaintiff Blake Padilla, a minor, executed a contingent fee agreement retaining claimant to file a personal injury action against defendants Derek and Lisa McClellan. The agreement was never approved by the court. A little more than one year later, the parents discharged claimant and retained objector, who substituted in as attorney of record. Claimant filed a notice of lien for attorney fees and costs. One month after objector commenced representation, the case settled at a mandatory settlement conference. When objector filed a petition to approve the minor’s compromise, claimant filed a request for attorney fees.

At the hearing approving the compromise, the…

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.