Huang v. Cheng

12 Citing cases

  1. Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley

    129 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that dismissal of an action for attorney fees for failure to give notice to of right to arbitrate under MFAA is discretionary

    [Citation.]" ( Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165, 1174 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 246]; see also Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 550] [MFAA's "purpose and policy . . . are to ensure the fair resolution of attorney fee disputes"].) Accordingly, the MFAA was enacted to require, at the option of the client, that the attorney arbitrate any fee dispute: "Unless the client has agreed in writing to arbitration under this article of all disputes concerning fees, costs, or both, arbitration under this article shall be voluntary for a client and shall be mandatory for an attorney if commenced by a client."

  2. Perez v. Grajales

    169 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 165 times
    Holding arguments raised for first time on appeal are forfeited

    ( Aguilar v. Lerner, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 984.) In order to protect the client's right to arbitration under the statute, an attorney wishing to pursue a claim for fees must first, prior to or at the time of serving an action — and only after a fee dispute has arisen ( Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1232 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 550]) — send the client a notice advising of its right to arbitration under the MFAA. (Bus. Prof. Code, § 6201, subd. (a).) If an attorney initiates an action or proceeding against the client for fees, the client may elect to stay the action by requesting arbitration before answering.

  3. Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig

    154 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 81 times
    Filing cross-complaint

    Under these circumstances, we cannot construe the notice that Philipson purportedly served on Gulsvig in 2002 as having covered those much later, and factually distinct, claims. ( Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 550] ["the right-to-arbitrate notice is effective only after an actual fee dispute has arisen."].) As a consequence, we conclude Philipson failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 6201 when it filed the expanded breach of contract and breach of covenant causes of action in its second amended cross-complaint against Gulsvig.

  4. Liska v. Arns Law Firm

    117 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 17 times

    The process favors the client in that only the client can elect mandatory arbitration of a fee dispute; the attorney must submit the matter to arbitration if the client makes that election." ( Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165, 1174-1175 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 246]; see also Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 550].) When the MFA was first proposed, the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF) sent a letter to the sponsoring senator explaining the need for a mandatory fee arbitration scheme.

  5. Neasham & Kramer LLP v. Neff

    No. 2:19-cv-00565-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. May. 4, 2020)

    Because no fee dispute existed, the issues before the Court are not appropriate for arbitration. See Huang v. Cheng, 66 Cal. App. 4th 1230, 1234 (1998) (stating the California Legislature sought to "ensure the fair resolution of attorney fee disputes" through arbitration) (emphasis added). Therefore, the Court finds a stay is no longer necessary and thus Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED.

  6. Law Offices of Carlin & Buchsbaum, LLP v. Page

    B255627 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2017)

    A. The MFAA and Required Notice Under Section 6201, Subdivision (a) The goal of the MFAA is to ensure the fair resolution of attorney-client fee disputes by "'alleviat[ing] the disparity in bargaining power in attorney fee matters which favors the attorney by providing an effective, inexpensive remedy to a client which does not necessitate the hiring of a second attorney. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. Valley (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1086-1087 (Howell); see also Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234.) The MFAA obligates the attorney to arbitrate, at the client's option, any fee dispute.

  7. Law Offices of Mark Waecker v. Kim

    B268212 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)

    Business and Professions Code section 6201 requires an attorney prior to suing a client for fees must provide written notice that the client can pursue arbitration. (Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234.) The right to arbitrate expires 30 days after receipt of the written notice.

  8. Albers v. Naegele

    B240455 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    "The policy behind the mandatory fee arbitration statutes [was] ... to alleviate the disparity in bargaining power in attorney fee matters which favors the attorney by providing an effective, inexpensive remedy to a client which does not necessitate the hiring of a second attorney. [Citation.]" (Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165, 1174; see also Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234 [MFAA's "purpose and policy . . . are to ensure the fair resolution of attorney fee disputes"].) If an attorney could require a client to contractually waive any and all rights to arbitration under the MFAA as a condition of the parties' fee agreement, such waiver would seriously undermine the protections of the statutory scheme.

  9. Giorgianni v. Crowley

    197 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Giorgianni, the defendant attorney filed a small claims action after an arbitration award was rendered to his former client.

    [Citation.]” ( Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165, 1174, 199 Cal.Rptr. 246; see also Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1234, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 [MFAA's “purpose and policy ... are to ensure the fair resolution of attorney fee disputes”].) Accordingly, the MFAA was enacted to require, at the option of the client, that the attorney arbitrate any fee dispute.

  10. Warden v. Mortuary

    2d Civil No. B206840 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2010)

    Citing only evidence supporting his contentions and ignoring facts which support the courts ruling is contrary to the rules of appellate practice. (Huang v. Cheng (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1235, fn. 4; In re Marriage of Green (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 14, 28-29.) Warden also fails to explain how the failure to allow Callahan to testify resulted in prejudice.