Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 17 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. B177857.,B177857. |
Citation | 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818,126 Cal.App.4th 1253 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Lawrence R. Cagney, Real Party in Interest. |
Pillsbury Winthrop, Richard S. Ruben, Costa Mesa, Richard E. Nielsen, Kevin M. Fong, San Francisco, and Todd G. Friedland, Costa Mesa, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, Allan A. Sigel and Christine C. Choi, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest.
Plaintiff, an attorney, is the named plaintiff in this class action suit. He was represented by the law firm where he works and by a second firm that serves as cocounsel with his firm in other cases. Defendant moved to disqualify both firms based on a conflict of interest: As the class representative, plaintiff is obligated to seek the maximum recovery for the putative class, but plaintiff and the firms may have an interest in maximizing their recovery of attorneys' fees.
The trial court denied the disqualification motion. Defendant sought review in this court by way of a petition for a writ of mandate. We issued an order to show cause why the trial court's decision should not be reversed. The firm where plaintiff works then withdrew. The second firm did not. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify the firms because an insurmountable conflict of interest exists between the class representative and class counsel, on one hand, and the putative class, on the other hand.
On January 9, 2004, plaintiff Lawrence Cagney filed this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendant Apple Computer, Inc., had collected excess sales tax from consumers in connection with a rebate program. The complaint alleges a violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.). In the prayer for relief, Cagney requests attorneys' fees under section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 1021.5.)1 Apple estimates that if it is found liable, each consumer would be entitled to $8.00.
Cagney was represented by two law firms, Westrup Klick LLP, where he works as an attorney, and the Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, which serves as cocounsel with Westrup Klick in a number of class actions based on the UCL.
On July 6, 2004, Apple filed a motion to disqualify both firms on the ground that their close association with Cagney would allow them to maximize attorneys' fees to the detriment of the putative class. In support of the motion, Apple established that from 2003 to 2004, Westrup Klick and the Sigel firm had jointly filed 10 class actions under the UCL (other than this one) in which an attorney from Westrup Klick or a relative of one of the attorneys was the named plaintiff. From 2000 to 2002, there were three such cases, including one with four named plaintiffs—three Westrup Klick attorneys and the wife of one of them.
On July 23, 2004, the firms jointly filed opposition papers to the motion to disqualify. Apple filed a reply memorandum.
By order dated August 11, 2004, the trial court denied the motion, stating, "While the Court recognizes compelling federal authority that would require disqualification on similar facts if [this case were a] federal class action[ ], the controlling California authority does not appear to support disqualification." The trial court also stated "[T]he issues presented by [this] motion[ ] involve controlling questions of law as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, appellate resolution of which would be of considerable assistance to the courts and counsel handling complex class and representative actions."
On August 25, 2004, Apple filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order (B177814).
On September 14, 2004, Apple filed a petition for a writ of mandate, challenging the same order (B177857). On September 23, 2004, we issued an order to show cause, established a briefing schedule, and calendared the matter for oral argument. We stayed Apple's appeal pending resolution of the writ petition.
On September 27, 2004—four days after we issued the order to show cause—Westrup Klick filed a notice in the trial court withdrawing as counsel for Cagney and the putative class. By letter dated October 8, 2004, Westrup Klick informed this court of its withdrawal, stating that the writ petition was moot as to it. Briefing went forward with the Sigel firm. Having read the briefs and heard oral argument, we now reach the merits of the petition.2
" (Brand v. 20th Century Ins. Co./21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 594, 601, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 380, citations omitted.)
(Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 455, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, citation omitted.)
As a preliminary matter, we reject Westrup Klick's contention that its withdrawal as counsel precludes us from deciding whether its representation of Cagney gave rise to a conflict of interest. Notwithstanding the firm's withdrawal, "[w]e have discretion to decide otherwise moot cases presenting important issues that are capable of repetition yet tend to evade review." (Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 524, fn. 1, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 28 P.3d 151.) This case raises important questions about the rights of putative class members and the conflicts of interest that may arise in representing them. And those questions may evade review if, in response to a writ petition or an order to show cause, counsel for the putative class simply withdraws from representation.3
(Susman v. Lincoln American Corp. (7th Cir.1977) 561 F.2d 86, 90-91 (Susman), fns. omitted; see id. at p. 90, fns. 5, 6 & 7 [collecting cases].)4
(Graybeal v. American Savings & Loan Association (D.D.C.1973) 59 F.R.D. 7, 13-14.)
(Turoff v. May Co. (6th Cir.1976) 531 F.2d 1357, 1360 (Turoff); accord, Pope v. City of Clearwater (M.D.Fla.1991) 138 F.R.D. 141, 144-145.)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Missud v. Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture
...representative and class counsel. Id. (citing Best Buy, 137 Cal.App.4th at 774, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 575; Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.App.4th 1253, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 (2005)). Defendants note that the Complaint includes allegations entitled "Judicial Notice of Web Based Inform......
-
Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'l Inc.
...arrangement (21.8 percent) to calculate the multiplier in the context of this settlement”]; Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1270, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 [observing that “attorneys' fees awarded under the common fund doctrine are based on a ‘percentage-of-the-......
-
Sharp v. Next Entertainment Inc.
...it was quoted in Cal Pak Delivery, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th 1, and finally, without proper attribution, it was quoted in Apple Computer, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 1253. However, at most, these three cases hold that courts properly disqualify counsel when there are irreconcilable conflicts of inte......
-
Fiduciary Trust Int'l of Cal. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
...to hover over the proceedings for an extended period of time for an appeal.’ [Citation.]” (Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1263–1264, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818.) 3. The parties also do not dispute that any conflict from this direct relationship is properly imput......
-
California Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Class Action Plaintiffs To Obtain Pre-Certification Access To Contact Information Of Potential Class Members
...and the class representative, due to the inherent conflict of interest presented. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253. In the wake of this ruling, plaintiff requested, and the trial court granted, permission to contact prospective class members to recruit ......
-
Filing a Class Action
...57 54. See Holland v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 75 F.R.D. 743, 745-46 (N.D. Ohio 1975); Apple Computer v. Superior Court, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1269-70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). 55. See Bodner v. Oreck Direct, LLC, 2007 WL 1223777, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (finding that plaintiff had not me......