Legal Opinion
Brienza v. Tepper
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 29, 1995No. D017475PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOFFMAN, J. *
Defendants Jerry J. Tepper and C.F. Group, Ltd. (together Tepper) appeal an order finding plaintiff Ralph Brienza’s (Brienza) attorney’s lien for contingency fees in the underlying lawsuit against Tepper was entitled to priority over a subsequently acquired offset obtained by Tepper (the judgment debtor) against Brienza (the judgment creditor). We affirm.
Facts
The parties agree no disputed facts exist in this case which we summarize below.
San Diego Case
On April 4, 1990, Brienza filed the underlying lawsuit against Tepper. The complaint alleged various causes of action…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Harrison v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Haupt v. Charlie's Kosher MarketCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Salaman v. BoltCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Jongepier v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. HyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Little v. Amber Hotel Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Pangborn Plumbing Corp. v. Carruthers & SkiffingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Wade v. SchraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Pou Chen Corporation v. Mts ProductsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.