Legal Opinion
Argaman v. Ratan
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 30, 1999No. B115047PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRIGNON, Acting P. J.
In Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 902 P.2d 259], the Supreme Court held that an attorney who litigates in proprio persona in an action to enforce a contract containing an attorney’s fee provision may not recover “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Civil Code section 1717 as compensation for the time and effort expended and the professional business opportunities lost as a result. (11 Cal.4th at p. 277.) In accord with the rationale of Trope, we conclude that an attorney who litigates in proprio persona may not be awarded a monetary…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Young v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. SparksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Dowling v. ZimmermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Good v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Tucker v. PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICESCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.