Legal Opinion
Perez v. Grajales
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 19, 2008No. H031726PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUFFY, J.
As we observed three years ago, “The Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA), under Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq., provides a quick and inexpensive method for clients, at their option, to resolve fee disputes with their attorneys.” (Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1083 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 499], fn. omitted.) In the attorney-client fee dispute before us—which arose out of federal litigation that was settled 10 years ago—the resolution of the dispute has proved neither quick nor inexpensive.
Appellant Elvia Grajales retained…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Aguilar v. LernerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Hocharian v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2011
- Steroid Hormone Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Professional Collection Consultants v. LauronCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
- Rogers v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Thompson v. IoaneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.