Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis v. Lotta CA2/8

Filed 1/10/14 Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis v. Lotta CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. B248251 MATHIS, (Los Angeles County Appellant, Super. Ct. No. TC026559)

v.

MICHAEL A. LOTTA,

Respondent.

APPEAL from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William P. Barry, Judge. Affirmed.

Marvin L. Mathis for Appellant.

Michael A. Lotta, in pro. per., for Respondent.

**********

This is a dispute over the apportionment of attorney fees between the former and subsequent attorneys for the plaintiffs in the underlying superior court action titled Tommy Carter et al. v. JVS Transportation et al., case No. TC026559. Appellant Law Offices of Marvin L. Mathis filed a wrongful death action on May 23, 2012, on behalf of three siblings (one minor and two adults) whose mother had been killed in an automobile accident a week earlier. In October 2012, the plaintiffs discharged appellant and substituted respondent Michael A. Lotta as their new counsel.1 About a week later, defense counsel indicated at the case management conference that the case could be settled for the policy limits. The case was thereafter settled on behalf of all three plaintiffs, with $500,000 the agreed-upon amount for the minor plaintiff. Some five months later, on March 21, 2013, the court held a hearing on a petition to approve the compromise of the minor plaintiff’s claim. At the hearing, the court requested appellant and respondent to submit additional briefing on the issue of the proper apportionment of fees between them, and took the matter under submission. Appellant submitted a declaration, a copy of the retainer agreement, a document referencing work performed on the case, and copies of receipts reflecting costs he had advanced on the case. Respondent also submitted a brief. On April 12, 2013, the court issued its order apportioning attorney fees from the minor plaintiff’s settlement as follows: $115,000 to respondent and $10,000 to appellant. The court also allowed recoverable costs in the amount of $334.95. Appellant then filed this appeal challenging the court’s apportionment of fees, arguing he performed the majority of the work to accomplish the settlement and therefore was entitled to a majority percentage of the recoverable fee. The order is an appealable order, despite respondent’s suggestion, without authority, to the contrary. (See Breckler