Valenta v. Regents of University of California
Decision Date | 28 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. G009790,G009790 |
Citation | 231 Cal.App.3d 1465,282 Cal.Rptr. 812 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Lubomir J. VALENTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, H. Richard Bixby, Claimant and Respondent. |
Lubomir Valenta appeals an order denying his motion to terminate a claim of lien by his former attorney, H. Richard Bixby. The trial court ruled Bixby was entitled to a lien for the reasonable value of his services against the judgment in an underlying case. Valenta contends the court lacked jurisdiction because the validity of the lien must be decided in an independent action. We agree and reverse. 1
In 1981, Valenta filed an action for wrongful termination against the Regents of the University of California and various members of the faculty and administration of the University of California at Irvine medical school. In April 1986, he retained Bixby, who represented him through a successful eight-day trial and obtained a judgment of $866,000 in November 1986.
Following entry of judgment, the defendants appealed and Valenta cross-appealed seeking reinstatement. Bixby associated another attorney to handle the appeal. In a letter to the new attorney, dated November 25, 1986, Valenta confirmed the association of attorney agreement as follows: On August 13, 1987, Valenta substituted Bixby out of the case.
After his termination as attorney of record, Bixby notified Valenta's new attorney that he had a lien on the proceeds of the judgment in the amount of $287,430, plus interest and costs of $1,000. Valenta objected to the claim of lien and notified Bixby both personally and through counsel that he would not recognize a lien.
Valenta declared "each and every fee agreement ... null and void, rescinded and invalid," based on numerous "acts and failures committed during the trial," failure to take the matter to appeal, an alleged unlawful attachment of Valenta's IBM computer, printer, word processor and software, and Bixby's "[f]ailure to execute written retainer/contingent fee/lien agreement ... at the time you agreed to represent me...." Valenta's attorney also noted the objection to the lien, stating "I am sure you know that under Business and Professions Code, section 6147(b) [ ], Dr. Valenta is within his rights in regarding your fee agreement as void and that you are, therefore, entitled to collect only a reasonable fee for the services you rendered to him."
On appeal of the underlying judgment, this court reduced the award pursuant to Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373, but otherwise affirmed it in its entirety. Thereafter, Bixby filed a notice of reaffirmation of claim of lien for reasonable attorney's services rendered and costs advanced.
On April 5, 1990, Valenta filed a motion to terminate the lien for reasonable attorney's fees and the possessory lien on his property. Bixby opposed the motion, contending he agreed to represent Valenta for a 1/3 contingent fee, with no agreement to pursue any appeal, after learning from Valenta that he had had four different attorneys since the filing of the complaint on May 21, 1981, and that, as of February 1986, no at issue memorandum had been filed and a trial date had not been obtained. He stated it was his custom and practice over 34 years to have a contingent fee in writing, but that he had given the complete file to Valenta at his request, without making a copy of the file for his records. Bixby concluded that "[u]nless Valenta's conscience starts bothering him, I will probably never see the fee contract, however, I am perfectly willing to accept the reasonable value of the services I rendered."
The trial court denied the motion to terminate the liens on May 11, 1990. On June 7, Valenta brought a motion to disqualify the trial judge for prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. That same day, he brought a motion to reconsider the denial of his motions to terminate the liens. Both motions were denied.
By order filed July 3, the court ruled as follows: Valenta timely filed this appeal from the denial of his motions to terminate the liens and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
In his reply brief, Valenta relies upon Hansen v. Jacobsen (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 350, 357, 230 Cal.Rptr. 580, and contends the only matter which could have been decided by the lower court was whether Bixby could file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp.
...a lack of precision in the use of these terms all too often creates confusion. (See Valenta v. Regents of University of California, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1469-1470, 282 Cal.Rptr. 812; Hansen v. Jacobsen, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 354, 357, 230 Cal. Rptr. 580.) B. Determining the E......
-
In re Marriage of Goddard
...to fix an attorney's lien in the same action commenced on behalf of the client. (Valenta v. Regents of University of California (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1465, 1469-1470, 282 Cal.Rptr. 812.) The failure of a complaint to contain facts sufficient to state a cause of action is a jurisdictional de......
-
Law Offices of Stanley J. Bell v. Shine, Browne & Diamond
...Cal.Rptr. 580; Hendricks v. Superior Court (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 586, 17 Cal.Rptr. 364.) In Valenta v. Regents of University of California, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1470, 282 Cal.Rptr. 812, the court expanded on this: "Clearly, the practice of filing a notice of lien in a pending action ......
-
Padilla v. McClellan
...J. Bell v. Shine, Browne & Diamond (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1011, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 717 (Bell)); Valenta v. Regents of University of California (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1465, 1470, 282 Cal.Rptr. 812; Hansen v. Jacobsen (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 350, 356, 230 Cal. Rptr. 580; Bandy v. Mt. Diablo Unified ......