Cortez

Cortez v. Bootsma

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 853·27 Cal. App. 4th 935·33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20·94 Daily Journal DAR 11704·59 Cal. Comp. Cases 570
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 1994D017438California1,249 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

This appeal presents a single narrow question: when a statute requires the superior court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees,” may a local court rule limit the amount of that award? Specifically, the court determined a “reasonable” fee was $65,000. However, San Diego County Superior Court Rules, rule 6.1 provided that in contested actions no attorney fees could be awarded “in excess of the amount agreed by the plaintiff to be paid to the plaintiff’s attorney.” In this case plaintiff and his attorney agreed to a 40 percent contingent fee, which would have amounted to $48,775 based on the underlying jury award to plaintiff of $121,938.24.

We are thus confronted with whether a superior court may disregard a local rule when the local rule would restrict the discretion granted a court by a state statute.

1. Facts

The relevant facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Fidel Cortez (Cortez) was an employee of the general contractor hired by appellants to perform work. Cortez was seriously injured on the job. The general contractor did not have workers’ compensation insurance. Accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to sue defendants for damages in superior court.

Cortez recovered…

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.