Legal Opinion

Dzwonkowski v. Spinella

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 27, 2011No. G044336PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FYBEL, J.

Introduction

Michael Spinella retained the Law Offices of Edward A. Dzwonkowski (the Dzwonkowski firm) to represent him in a probate matter. Russ Boltz, of counsel to the Dzwonkowski firm, took over the matter representing Spinella when it proceeded to litigation. A dispute over the payment of attorney fees arose between Spinella and the Dzwonkowski firm, and Dzwonkowski retained Boltz to represent him in the mandatory fee arbitration and later court proceedings. The arbitration panel found in favor of Dzwonkowski and against Spinella, and awarded Dzwonkowski in excess of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Rosenaur v. SchererCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sands & Associates v. JuknavorianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Arace v. Medico Investments, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Garden Grove Galleria v. Cathay Bank CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. Tierney v. JavaidCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  5. Westside Investments v. Dolberry CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API