Chodos v. W. Publ'g Co. - 92 F. App'x 471 (9th Cir. 2004)

Rule:

In California, the measure of recovery in quantum meruit is the reasonable value of the services rendered, provided they were of direct benefit to the defendant. California courts have adopted a subsidiary definition of the reasonable value of a plaintiff's services: the amount that it would have cost the defendant to obtain the services from another person. Alternatively, California courts have formulated this measure as the amount the defendant would have had to pay on the "open market" to obtain the same services, or the "comparable charge" for such services. California trial courts are afforded broad discretion in allowing evidence on the reasonable value of a plaintiff's services.

Facts:

In an earlier case, the appellate court held that appellee West Publishing Co. ("West") breached its contract with appellant Rafael Chodos when it refused to publish appellant's manuscript on the law of fiduciary duties and that appellant was entitled to restitution. In this current petition, appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding him $300,000, arguing that the jury instruction on the proper method for measuring recovery in quantum meruit was erroneous under California law.

Issue:

Was the jury instruction on the proper method for measuring recovery in quantum meruit erroneous under California law?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court noted that jury instructions challenged as misstatements of the law were reviewed de novo. In California, the measure of recovery in quantum meruit was the reasonable value of the services rendered, provided they were of direct benefit to the defendant. Alternatively, the court noted, California courts had formulated the measure as the amount the defendant would have had to pay on the "open market" to obtain the same services, or the "comparable charge" for such services. The court found that it was within the competence of the jury to determine the value of appellant's services based on appellee's testimony on the hourly or per unit compensation that appellee would have offered to have the treatise written and appellant's testimony on what a practicing attorney would have accepted to produce the treatise. The district court's "open market" jury instruction was not in error.