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

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.