Legal Opinion
Hernandez v. Siegel
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 2014No. A139653PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BRUINIERS, J.
Attorneys Dan Siegel and Ann Weills represented Nimachia Hernandez in a successful employment discrimination lawsuit in which attorney fees and costs were awarded, pursuant to Government Code section 12965. The total amount of the fee award, plus accrued interest, was paid directly to Siegel’s law firm by the defendant in the litigation. When the interest was not disbursed to her, Hernandez sued Siegel, Weills, and their law firm, Siegel & Yee (collectively respondents), alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional tort. The trial court was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Flannery v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Bankes v. LucasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Berger v. Varum, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Berger v. VarumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- Crasnick v. MarquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Crasnick v. MarquezAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2016
- Felczer v. AppleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.