Colgan v. Learman Tool Group, Inc.

Full title: KEN COLGAN AND CHRIS WILSON, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LEATHERMAN…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Jan 25, 2008

No. B196650 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2008)

Opinion

KEN COLGAN AND CHRIS WILSON, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC., Defendant and Appellant. B196650 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fifth Division January 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC278713 and BC247889

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

The opinion filed December 27, 2007, is hereby modified as follows:

1. The total amount awarded to class counsel on remand, as set forth in the last sentence of the first paragraph under INTRODUCTION on page 2, is changed to $4,866,512.21.

2. At the end of the second paragraph on page 5, under Standards of Review, after the citation to Akins v. Avis Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134, and before the closing parenthesis, the following citation is added:

;see also Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 [trial court’s determination of the value of professional services rendered will not be disturbed unless appellate court is convinced the determination is clearly wrong].

3. On page 10, at line 9 of the second full paragraph, the sentence that reads: “And the amount of the new award is not so large as to ‘shock the conscience’ or suggest that ‘passion and prejudice’ influenced the trial court’s determination,” is changed to read as follows:

As such, we are not convinced that the trial court’s determination of the amount of the new award is “clearly wrong,” nor is the amount of the award so large as to “shock the conscience” or suggest that “passion and prejudice” influenced the trial court’s determination.

4. At the end of the continuation of the first paragraph on page 12, the following sentence is added:

The Supreme Court has also stated, “we have discovered no case requiring a statement of decision for an order on a motion for attorney fees.” (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1294.)

5. At the second line from the top on page 13, after the word judgment, the remainder of the sentence is deleted and the following language is added:

we are not convinced that the new fee award for services rendered on the Colgan I appeal is clearly wrong. The amount of the award is not so large as to shock the conscience or suggest that passion and prejudice influenced the determination.

This modification does not change the judgment.

TURNER, P.J. MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.