PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000)

PLCM GROUP, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID DREXLER, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant; DEARBORN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Respondents.

[Modification of Opinion (22 Cal.4th 1084).]

THE COURT.- The opinion herein, appearing at 22 Cal. 4th 1084, is modified as follows.

At page 1097 of 22 Cal.4th, the sentence that reads "That is not to say that reasonable attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 will not reflect many of the same factors considered in a cost-plus approach; thus, for example, the trial court may consider the amount of fees that were billed to a client as establishing a presumptive maximum award" is replaced with the following:

That is not to say that reasonable attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 will not reflect many of the same factors considered in a cost-plus approach.

The concurring and dissenting opinion herein, appearing at 22 Cal. 4th 1084, is modified as follows:

At page 1100 of 22 Cal.4th, the sentence that reads "It concludes that '[n]othing' in section 1717 'compels' use of the cost-plus approach (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1097), although a trial court has discretion to use the amount of fees billed as 'a presumptive maximum award' (ibid.) and to use 'other methodologies' in 'exceptional circumstances' (ibid.)" is replaced with the following:

It concludes that although a trial court has discretion "in exceptional circumstances" to use "methodologies" other than "the lodestar method" (id. at p. 1097), "[n]othing" in section 1717 "compels" use of the cost-plus approach (id. at pp. 1096-1097).

This modification does not affect the judgment.