|
|
Clifford v. American Drug Stores8/22/2005
s solely attributable to Doose, or that there was no substantial evidence supporting a finding that the same legal services supported Clifford's prosecution of Sav-On. (Cf., Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 813; Rode, supra, 892 F.2d at p. 1185; Baughman, 583 F.2d at p. 1215; Decker, supra, 564 F.Supp. at p. 1282; Ark. Community Organizations v. Ark. State Bd., supra, 468 F.Supp. at p. 1258.)
Sav-On suggests that certain legal services related to Doose were unnecessary to Clifford's prosecution of the case against Save-On, such as a motion for protective order, opposition to Doose's motion for summary judgment, a reply to Doose's opposition to Clifford's motion to amend the complaint, proceedings related to document requests, and opposition to Doose's motions in limine.
Sav-On refers only to attorney time sheets, without any reference to the record for the enumerated proceedings. Further, Sav-On makes no effort to show that the legal services relating to them were attributable solely to the prosecution of Doose, other than its own conclusion.
Apparently Sav-On wishes this court to search the record to find these papers, if they were in fact all included in the 16 volumes of clerk's transcripts and 37 volumes of reporter's transcripts, and to search out any point or argument made by Clifford that we might consider unrelated to the prosecution of Sav-On. And then, Sav-On is apparently inviting this court to search the record to verify that it brought these matters to the attention of the trial court so that it might exercise its discretion.
"`The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel. . . .' [Citation.]" (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050.) We are not required to examine undeveloped claims, or to make the parties' arguments for them. (Paterno v. State of California, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.) We therefore decline Sav-On's invitation.
II. CLIFFORD'S APPEAL
Clifford makes several assignments of error with regard to the punitive damages retrial and with regard to the award of attorney fees. Clifford contends that the trial court erred in excluding all evidence of her injuries; that the court erroneously admitted evidence that allowed Sav-On to attack the implied and express findings of the first jury; that erroneous instructions allowed the jury, in effect, to redetermine liability issues decided by the first jury; and that the trial court erred in refusing to apply a multiplier to the attorney fee award to adjust for the risk inherent in contingent fee cases.
1. Evidentiary and Instructional Errors
We agree that it was error to exclude evidence of Clifford's injuries, and we also agree that the jury instructions impermiss
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|