Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP, 664 F.3d 282

Fitzgerald appeals a $33,333 quantum meruit award for his referral and services in Nostro’s medical-malpractice case against Crockett, which Crockett ultimately settled for $500,000 in fees.
Crockett paid Fitzgerald a referral fee in prior practice; Fitzgerald sought half of Crockett’s fee or, in quantum meruit, the value of his referral.
In Crockett I (2009), the Ninth Circuit vacated the award and remanded to include the value of Fitzgerald’s client referral apart from other services, and to consider established customs.
On remand, the district court again awarded $33,333, claiming it already included the referral value and noting Crockett’s one-third referral-fee custom.
The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred by not separately finding the value of Fitzgerald’s referral and by misapplying the custom and value standard, vacating and remanding for a final $100,000 award.
The correct measure is the value of the referral; the court must consider Crockett’s custom (one-third of recovery) and adjust for any lost value due to Fitzgerald’s efforts, including reduced contingency fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand required separate valuation of the referral	Fitzgerald: referral value not included; must be explicit.	Crockett: value encompassed by original award; no separate finding needed.	Remand required explicit valuation of the referral
Whether the $33,333 award on remand was proper	Fitzgerald: not proper; must reflect referral value.	Crockett: original value already accounted; no change needed.	Not proper; must reflect referral value and customs
What is the proper measure of unjust enrichment for Fitzgerald	The value is the referral's benefit to Crockett, not the saved fees alone.	Value may be the savings from reduced contingency fee; customary practices matter.	Value is the referral; adjusted for lost value from 40% to 33⅓% contingency
Should established customs be considered in calculating quantum meruit	Customs should inform the value of the referral.	Customs are evidence of value but not determinative without specific findings.	Yes; customs can inform value, but explicit findings required

Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP, 583 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2009) (remand required including value of client referral in quantum meruit)
Jarvis v. K2 Inc., 486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007) (monetary awards reviewed for clear error; Rule 52(a) requirements)
Thompson v. Herrmann, 530 P.2d 1183 (Nev. 1975) (proper measure of unjust enrichment in transfer of benefits)
Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 (1956) (necessity of explicit findings for monetary awards)