Little

Little v. Amber Hotel Co.

Bad Law
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 97·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1628·202 Cal. App. 4th 280
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2011No. B227518California9,738 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Manella, J.

Respondent James J. Little asserted claims against appellant Amber Hotel Company (Amber) for tortious interference with contract, *285 alleging that Amber impaired Little’s lien on an attorney fee award. Amber challenges the judgment in Little’s favor, contending that Little’s former client nullified the fee award through a settlement, and that the damages awarded to Little fail as a matter of law. We discern no reversible error and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prior Action

In August 2004, Amber initiated a lawsuit against Frank Martini and his brother, Satanand Sharma, together with several businesses they controlled (collectively, the Martini parties). 1 In the action, Amber asserted claims for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that the Martini parties failed to pay a broker’s commission owed to Amber in connection with the sale of a hotel. The claims were based in part on a listing agreement and a sales agreement, each of which contained an attorney fee provision.

In October 2004, Martini and Sharma hired Attorney Little to provide representation in the action. They executed a contract entitled “Retainer Fee Agreement and Attorney’s L[ie]n,”…

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.