Defendant client sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Defendant client sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which was rendered in favor of plaintiff attorneys on their action to recover for attorneys' services that were given to the client. The attorneys filed a complaint against the client that sought to recover for attorneys' services that were given to the client. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the attorneys, and the client appealed. The court affirmed. The record showed that the attorneys had executed a written contract with the client where it was provided that in consideration of their procuring for the client a change of zoning from zone "B" to zone "C" the client was to pay them $ 5,000. class action lawsuit treats the entire class. The jury had answered in the affirmative an interrogatory that the attorneys had performed their end of the contract. The court found the history of the transactions and language of the contract, taken into consideration with the meaning of the terms "zones," "special permits," and "conditional variance," all tended to support the jury's implied finding as to the intent and understanding of the parties to the contract, and fully sustained their affirmative answer to the interrogatory submitted to them on that subject. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that was rendered in favor of the attorneys on their action to recover for attorneys' services that were given to the client. The class action settlement notice given to class members did not violate their due process rights where the notice complied with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769, by apprising class members of the agreement concerning attorney fees and of the options open to dissenting class members; The trial court's calculation of attorney fees based on a percentage of the common fund was proper, and the award was reasonable, because the use of a percentage of 33.33 percent of the common fund was consistent with, and in the range of, awards in other class action lawsuits, and because the court considered the proper lodestar multiplier factors in determining whether to apply a multiplier; Because there was no evidence of collusion, the inclusion of a clear sailing provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of class counsel. Order affirmed.