Class Action

New attorneys' fees decision: Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 13, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held that, if the plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit was the catalyst to action by the defendant, the pre-lawsuit notification requirement applies not only when fees are sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, as held in Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine.  In so holding, the Court followed an earlier Court of Appeal opinion, Abouab v. City and County of San Francisco, 141 Cal.App.4th 643 (2006).

This blog's original post on Graham is here and on Abouab here.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on January 15, 2010 (boomark / Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc.&linkurl=http://mail.uslaw.com/library/Class_Action/New_attorneys_fees_decision_Pipefitters_Local_636_Defined_Benefit_Plan.php?item=692474' rel=nofollow title='The UCL Practitioner'>email).