McCall v. Morris Polich & Purdy CA2/5

Filed 11/25/13 McCall v. Morris Polich & Purdy CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BRANDON MCCALL et al., B240242

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC289925) v.

MORRIS POLICH & PURDY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

THE QUISENBERRY LAW FIRM,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr, Judge. Affirmed. The Quisenberry Law Firm and John N. Quisenberry; Esner, Chang & Boyer and Stuart B. Esner, for Objector and Appellant. Shenoi Koes, Allan A. Shenoi, for Defendant and Respondent Shenoi Koes. Morris Polich & Purdy, Richard H. Nakamura, Jr., and David J. Vendler, for Defendant and Respondent Morris Polich & Purdy. No appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

This involves a second appeal in a dispute over class action attorney fees. Two law firms, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP and Shenoi Koes LLP, were named as defendants in an arbitration proceeding. Brandon McCall, Barry Selbst, Kelly-Slate Diaz and Dani Reagan are the named plaintiffs of the salaried managers’ subclass in the class action. They are likewise the plaintiffs in the arbitration proceeding. The parties refer to the salaried managers’ subclass as the McCall subclass. Defendants had represented the entire class during part of the wage and hour class action. Opposing defendants in the attorney fee dispute is the Quisenberry Law Firm, which appeared through its principal, John N. Quisenberry (the objector). The objector represented the McCall subclass during a portion of the class action. The objector negotiated a settlement on the McCall subclass’s behalf. For clarity’s purpose, we will refer to Morris Polich & Purdy LLP and Shenoi Koes LLP as defendants. The objector appeals from a March 22, 2012 order directing Labor Ready Inc., the McCall class’s employer, to disburse $247,000 to defendants. The trial court issued the disbursement order after an arbitrator awarded defendants, the prior class counsel, 65 percent of the $380,000 attorney fees award. The objector argues: it was error to order Labor Ready Inc. to release two-third of the class counsel fees to defendants; it was not bound by the arbitration award because the arbitration was between defendants and the McCall class; the trial court could not release two-thirds of the class counsel fees on the basis of the arbitration award; the class counsel fees cannot be used to satisfy the prior class counsel’s quantum meruit claim against the McCall class; the disbursement order circumvents the requirements governing the execution of money judgments because Labor Ready, Inc. is not a judgment debtor. The objector’s arguments are meritless as they are barred by the law of the case doctrine. Thus, we affirm the order.