D.C. v. Sierra Vista Family Clinic CA2/6
Filed 7/20/23 D.C. v. Sierra Vista Family Clinic CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
D.C., a Minor, etc., 2d Civ. No. B319465 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2017- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00493203-CU-MM-VTA) (Ventura County) v.
SIERRA VISTA FAMILY CLINIC et al.,
Defendants;
ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP,
Claimant and Appellant.
The law firm of Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP (ACTS), appeals from the judgment after the trial court apportioned attorney fees in a petition for minor’s compromise. The court awarded ACTS 5 percent of the fees after one of its former associates settled the case during her subsequent employment
with another firm.1 ACTS contends the court misapplied various statutes and court rules when apportioning fees. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the fall of 2016, Tyler Conner, as guardian ad litem, signed a contingency fee agreement with the Ratzan Law Group (Ratzan), a Florida law firm, to represent her minor son, D.C., in a medical malpractice case. Ratzan engaged ACTS to serve as local counsel in Ventura County. An addendum to the agreement Conner signed with Ratzan specified that ACTS would receive 5 percent of the attorney fees recovered in any settlement. ACTS assigned one of its associates, Yolanda Medina, to handle D.C.’s case. Over the next 15 months Medina worked with Ratzan to review the case, strategize litigation, file documents, amend pleadings, and conduct written discovery. She served as local counsel until Ratzan withdrew from the case in January 2018. ACTS took over D.C.’s case after Ratzan’s withdrawal. ACTS and Conner signed a contingency fee agreement stating that ACTS would receive the maximum attorney fee allowed under California law if D.C. obtained any recovery: 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered, 33.3 percent of the next $50,000, 25
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)