FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 14 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH PADGETT, No. 19-17268
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO, P.C.,
Movant-Appellee,
A. CURTIS WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 23, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN,** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Joseph Padgett appeals the district court’s order following this panel’s
remand in Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 722 F. App’x 608 (9th Cir. 2018). Our
mandate instructed the district court to determine whether contractual provisions or
an attorney lien authorized the order awarding fees to the law firm, rather than to
Padgett. See id. at 610. On remand, the district court concluded an enforceable
attorney lien was in effect at the time of the original award of fees, and it awarded
reasonable attorney fees to the firm in the amount of $471,056.64.
Padgett argues the fee agreement had no legal effect because he voided the
agreement based on counsel’s failure to comply with California Business and
Professional Code § 6147(a). See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6147(b). Under
California law, contingent fee contracts that fail to comply with California Business
and Professions Code § 6147(a) are not void ab initio, but may be voided by the
client. See id.; O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC, 42
Cal. App. 5th 546, 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). Padgett argues the district court erred
by looking to whether the fee agreement was in effect when the fees were awarded
rather than after he voided it years later.
Padgett relies on California law indicating a client may void an agreement
after the attorney’s work has been performed. See Alderman v. Hamilton, 205 Cal.
2
App. 3d 1033, 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). We are aware of no case, however, that
permits the client to void the contract not merely years after full performance, but
after fees have actually been awarded and the award defended by the attorneys on
appeal in reliance on the agreement. The firm was properly awarded its reasonable
attorney fees.
AFFIRMED.
3