Hernandez

Hernandez v. Siegel

Good Law
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 880·230 Cal. App. 4th 165
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2014A139653California3,960 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

Attorneys Dan Siegel and Ann Weills represented Nimachia Hernandez in a successful employment discrimination lawsuit in which attorney fees and costs were awarded, pursuant to Government Code section 12965. The total amount of the fee award, plus accrued interest, was paid directly to Siegel’s law firm by the defendant in the litigation. When the interest was not disbursed to her, Hernandez sued Siegel, Weills, and their law firm, Siegel & Yee (collectively respondents), alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional tort. The trial court was ultimately asked to determine whether Hernandez or her attorneys were entitled to the interest paid on the attorney fees, as well as the costs awarded. The trial court concluded respondents, rather than Hernandez, were entitled to both. Hernandez appeals. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In September 2005, Hernandez retained respondents to represent her in an employment discrimination suit, brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), against the Regents of the University of California (Regents). Hernandez and Weills signed a fee agreement…

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.