Work on $54,771.25 Fee Award Was Interrelated Under Automobile Sales Finance Act and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims.
Many consumer statutes allow for fee recovery to the prevailing party, such as the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA, Civ. Code,, § 2983.4). Others allow for fee recovery, even against the consumer but only if the prosecution action was found to be in bad faith, such as in the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (CLRA, Civ. Code, § 1780 (e)). Pulido v. R. J. Gaestel, Inc., Case Nos. F063388/F063914 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2013) (unpublished) involved a fee award against a consumer bringing both ASFA and CLFA claims.
The equities were not particularly in favor of plaintiff car purchasers; after all, they were found not to have effectively rescinded the transaction under the ASFA when the record showed they continued to use the vehicle for four years during the litigation. That made it pretty easy for the lower and appellate courts to find that the defense prevailed under the ASFA. However, the trial judge also awarded $54,771.25 against plaintiffs and in favor of the defense across-the-board.
The fee award was affirmed. Plaintiffs did not deny that the defense was the prevailing side for purposes of ASFA fee recovery. However, plaintiffs argued that the lower court did not (and it was true) make a bad faith finding under CLRA. The reviewing court had no problems sustaining the result, because it found both claims arose from identical facts such that no apportionment was needed despite the express lack of a bad faith finding under the CLRA fee-shifting statute.
Rosalie Jones as auto salesman. Rosalie Jones was an Oyster Bay socialite and suffragist, known as “General Jones.” 1920 – 1930. Library of Congress.