Legal Opinion
Giorgianni v. Crowley
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 4, 2011No. H035398PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUFFY, J.
Under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq.; MFAA), a client may resolve attorney fee disputes by a speedy and inexpensive nonbinding arbitration process.1 Carrie Giorgianni prevailed at arbitration, and her attorney, John Kevin Crowley, filed a request for trial de novo that was within the 30-day time limit specified in the MFAA, thereby (he thought) rejecting the arbitration award. Giorgianni petitioned to confirm the award, claiming that Crowley’s de novo request was filed in the wrong court and was therefore ineffective. The court below…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Baxter v. Cal. State Teachers' Ret. Sys., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Maaso v. SignerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. WitcraftCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Sandler v. SanchezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Citibank v. TabalonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2012
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.