Legal Opinion
County of Orange v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In Re County of Orange)
District Court, C.D. California
Decided November 10, 1999No. SA CV 95-0037-GLT, SA CV 96-0643-GLT, SA CV 96-0771-GLT, SA CV 96-0163-GLT, SA CV 96-0765-GLT, SA CV 96-1010-GLT, SA CV 96-0772-GLT, SA CV 96-0766-GLT, SA CV 97-0066-GLT, SA CV 97-0122-GLT, SA CV 98-0526-GLT, SA CV 97-0186-GLT, SA CV 98-0525-GLT, SA CV 98-0524-GLT, SA CV 98-0527-GLT. Bankruptcy No. SA 94-22272JRPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON ATTORNEYS FEE APPLICATION
TAYLOR, District Judge.
The Court finds the parties entered into a valid and binding attorney fee agreement for a fee based on fixed “benchmark” hourly billing rates, subject to adjustment down or up at the end of the representation based on results accomplished and other agreed criteria. Strictly construing the contract against the attorneys, the final fee is not calculated by a lodestar multiplier, but, in the absence of a specific agreement for a major adjustment, the final fee is appropriately in the same general order of magnitude as the hourly…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ross v. BernhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Simler v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Arnall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Estate of StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Fletcher v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Petrulis v. WilksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006