Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Law Offices of David Drexler
Filed 8/15/06 Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Law Offices of David Drexler CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID DREXLER Defendant and Appellant; LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP E. KAY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B182098 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC299881) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of David Drexler and David Drexler for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of John W. Dalton and John W. Dalton; Law Offices of Philip E. Kay and Philip Edward Kay for Defendants and Respondents.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.
Appellant Law Offices of David Drexler (Drexler) appeals from a judgment entered after a court trial on an interpleader action brought by Ralphs Grocery Company seeking resolution of conflicting claims to attorney fees awarded in a previous action. We affirm.
CONTENTIONS
Drexler contends:[1] (1) that the trial court erred in determining that the consent for division of fees signed by Lisa Petsco (Petsco), whom Drexler and respondent Law Offices of Philip E. Kay (Kay) jointly represented, operated to bring the fee sharing agreement between Drexler and Kay into compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-200 (hereafter Rule 2-200); (2) that the trial court erred in determining that Petsco's consent was obtained without fraud or coercion; (3) that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Kay's alleged custom and practice; and (4) that the trial court erred in awarding Kay attorneys fees pursuant to former section 2033 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
1. The underlying action and the agreement between Drexler and Kay
In a separate action, Petsco sued Ralphs Grocery Company and one of her supervisors for sexual harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900). Initially, Petsco was represented solely by Drexler. However, seeking to bring in counsel with greater expertise in sexual harassment cases, Drexler struck an agreement with Kay that Kay would associate in as cocounsel in Petsco's action and potentially other cases against Ralphs. The terms of the agreement were set forth in a letter dated June 7, 1999, from Kay to Drexler, which read in part:
â€
