Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison v. Telex Corp. case brief summary
602 F.2d 866 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 (1979)
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant corporate client appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff law firm in an action to recover attorney's fees under a contingent fee agreement.
FACTS:
-Defendant corporate client recovered a substantial judgment but the verdict in its favor was reversed on appeal while a judgment against it on a counterclaim was not disturbed.
-That judgment threatened defendant with bankruptcy so it sought the best available lawyer to prosecute an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
-Defendant and plaintiff law firm entered into an agreement under which plaintiff's fee was contingent on certain factors.
-After plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari, defendant settled its counterclaim liability in a wash settlement in which neither side recovered anything and all claims were released.
-When defendant refused to pay its bill, plaintiff filed suit.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, claiming that the contract was ambiguous, rendering summary judgment improper, and that the fee involved, $ 1 million, was unconscionable.
ISSUE:
Was the fee unconscionable?
HOLDING:
No. The court affirmed the lower court because the fee was not unconscionable where the leverage furnished by the petition for certiorari allowed settlement of defendant's counterclaim liability.
ANALYSIS:
Since the contract was unambiguous, its interpretation was a question of law appropriate for summary judgment.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment because under the circumstances the fee was not unconscionable and summary disposition was appropriate since the fee agreement was unambiguous and its interpretation was a question of law.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
602 F.2d 866 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981 (1979)
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant corporate client appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff law firm in an action to recover attorney's fees under a contingent fee agreement.
FACTS:
-Defendant corporate client recovered a substantial judgment but the verdict in its favor was reversed on appeal while a judgment against it on a counterclaim was not disturbed.
-That judgment threatened defendant with bankruptcy so it sought the best available lawyer to prosecute an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
-Defendant and plaintiff law firm entered into an agreement under which plaintiff's fee was contingent on certain factors.
-After plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari, defendant settled its counterclaim liability in a wash settlement in which neither side recovered anything and all claims were released.
-When defendant refused to pay its bill, plaintiff filed suit.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff. Defendant appealed, claiming that the contract was ambiguous, rendering summary judgment improper, and that the fee involved, $ 1 million, was unconscionable.
ISSUE:
Was the fee unconscionable?
HOLDING:
No. The court affirmed the lower court because the fee was not unconscionable where the leverage furnished by the petition for certiorari allowed settlement of defendant's counterclaim liability.
ANALYSIS:
Since the contract was unambiguous, its interpretation was a question of law appropriate for summary judgment.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment because under the circumstances the fee was not unconscionable and summary disposition was appropriate since the fee agreement was unambiguous and its interpretation was a question of law.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment