Case ID: f-appx_462/html/0650-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward ALVARADO; et al., Plaintiffs, and Kay McKenzie Parker, Appellant, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, dba Fedex Express, Defendant-Appellee. Gary White and Alexander Rivera, Plaintiffs, and Kay McKenzie Parker, Appellant, v. Federal Express Corporation, a Delaware corporation, dba Fedex Express, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 09-15415, 09-15417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011.
    Filed May 26, 2011.
    Gerald Clausen, Esquire, Michael S. Davis, Esquire, Law Office of Gerald Clau-sen, James Michael Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Waukeen Q. McCoy, Law Office of Waukeen McCoy, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
    Holly MacLeish Baldwin, Sanford Jay Rosen, Esquire, Senior, Ernest Galvan, Kenneth M. Walczak, Rosen Bien & Gal-van, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellant.
    Barak Jonathan Babcock, Senior, David Andrew Billions, Esquire, Senior, Cynthia J. Collins, Esquire, Frederick L. Douglas, Esquire, Sandra C. Isom, Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN, Patricia H. Cullison, Esquire, Francis J. Ortman, III, Esquire, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Sydney Wilson, III, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Fedex Litigation, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Nevada, Reno, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the district court’s judgment denying Parker standing to seek statutory attorney’s fees.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Parker could not seek statutory attorney’s fees. Although attorney’s fees under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov.Code § 12965(b), belong to the attorney, the attorney may waive those fees through “an enforceable agreement to the contrary.” Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal.4th 572, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809, 28 P.3d 860, 871 (2001). Here, the Engagement for Legal Services (ELS) (to which Parker was a party through Addendum 1) clearly provided that the attorneys’ fees would be 40% of any amounts received or recovered by way of settlement after arbitration or mediation. Having expressly agreed to receive only 40% of any amount received by way of settlement, Parker may not now demand statutory fees that the plaintiffs did not receive “by way of settlement.” The district court’s discretionary decision was buttressed by (1) the special master’s order relating to the attorney’s fee arrangement, and (2) other evidence (outside the agreement) indicating the agreement waived statutory fee claims. For example, because FEHA attorney’s fees belong to the attorney, the judgment plaintiffs (who signed the same ELS) would not have needed to assign those fees to McCoy after trial — unless McCoy (and Parker) had previously waived statutory fees in favor of all the plaintiffs under the ELS.

The district court did not err in determining that the ELS is an enforceable agreement. California courts have held that a discharged attorney may not seek the full contingent fee after discharge, because doing so would interfere with the client’s right to discharge the attorney. Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784, 100 Cal.Rptr. 385, 494 P.2d 9, 13-14 (1972). Allowing a discharged attorney the full fee amount “could result in double payment of fees first to the discharged and then to a new attorney.” Spires v. Am. Bus Lines, 158 Cal.App.3d 211, 204 Cal.Rptr. 531, 533 (1984).

Although a discharged attorney may not enforce the contingent fee percentage, Fracasse does not render the entirety of the contract unenforceable. See, e.g., Weiss v. Marcus, 51 Cal.App.3d 590, 598, 124 Cal.Rptr. 297 (1975) (enforcing lien provision in the contract up to the quantum meruit amount). Further, the client may still enforce the contract in order to limit current and discharged attorneys’ recovery to the total agreed contingent fee amount. See Cazares v. Saenz, 208 Cal.App.3d 279, 256 Cal.Rptr. 209, 215 (1989). Enforcing the waiver of statutory fees does not expose the client to double payment, nor would it interfere with the client’s ability to discharge counsel. Therefore, the ELS is “an enforceable agreement to the contrary” disposing of statutory attorney’s fees.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Appellant Kay McKenzie Parker’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 27) is granted as to Exhibits A and G, and the remainder is denied. Appellant Kay McKenzie Parker’s Second Request to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 40-1) is denied.