Legal Opinion

Baker Marquart LLP v. Kantor

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided April 25, 2018No. B280861PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLui, P.J.

*731Appellant Baker Marquart LLP represented respondent James R. Kantor on a contingency basis in litigation that resulted in a significant recovery for Kantor. Following the conclusion of Baker Marquart's representation, Kantor filed a demand for fee arbitration in accordance with the parties' contingency fee agreement. In his arbitration demand, Kantor argued Baker Marquart charged him an incorrect contingency fee because Baker Marquart failed to complete two specified tasks. In advance of the arbitration, *732however, Kantor submitted, and the three-person arbitration panel (panel) accepted, an ex…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  3. SWAB FINANCIAL v. E Trade SecuritiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of TeamstersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2022
  2. Grabowski v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
  3. Grabowski v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2021
  4. Kelly v. Charles Schwab & Co. CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2020
  5. Kim v. PCP-Sundance CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API