Dahl

Dahl v. Rosenfeld

Good Law
316 F.3d 1074·2003 WL 152196
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 23, 2003No. 01-16919California1,865 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tallman, J.

Appellees Randall Dahl and his co-workers (“Dahl”) filed a complaint in California Superior Court alleging that Appellants David Rosenfeld and his law firm (“law firm”) committed legal malpractice by not adequately enforcing a provision of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The law firm removed the ease to federal court. The district court remanded the matter to California Superior Court and awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees. The law firm appealed. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order, but we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees. We find that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Dahl.

Dahl and his co-workers were employed by J & R Distribution (“J & R”), located in San Joaquin County, California. Dahl claims that J & R breached the CBA by transferring work to other entities over which J & R had control. According to Dahl, the transfer resulted in a loss of work and, eventually, layoffs. Dahl’s union, Teamster’s Local 70, retained Rosen-feld’s law firm to protect the employees’ rights under the CBA. Dahl alleges that the law firm mishandled the grievance and,…

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.