Legal Opinion
Rutgard v. Haynes
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 3, 2001No. 99-56403; D.C. No. CV-98-00524-TJWPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
The district court properly determined that there was sufficient consideration for the mutual release between Rutgard and Haynes. Although Rutgard appears to correctly assert that under California law an attorney would not be entitled to fees for representation which occurs while the attorney has an actual conflict of interest, Image Technical Service, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 136 F.3d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir.1998), it is also clear under California law that our task is not to reach an ex post conclusion as to the merits of the claim for attorneys’ fees in order to determine whether…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. Eric J. CarlsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Stub v. BelmontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Goldstone-Tobias Agency, Inc. v. Barbroo Enterprises Productions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Image Technical Service, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Murphy v. T. Rowe Price Prime Reserve Fund, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993