Substantial Reduction Needed To Be Restudied. On June 29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time. It basically reversed a fee award based on not using venue-based hourly rates and after making what the appellate […]
Venue Rates Had To Be Used And The Substantial “Haircut” Needed More Explanation. What happened in Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 26, 2025) (unpublished) is that lemon law plaintiffs requesting $82,719.33 in fees and costs ($74,275 in fees and $8,444.33 in costs) were only awarded a
Reason Was That Applicable Consumer Statutes—Moss-Magnuson Act, Song-Beverly Act, And Consumers Legal Remedies Act—Trumped Section 1717 Because They Only Allow Fee Recovery To A Prevailing Consumer Or Plaintiff. Martinez v. Sai Long Beach B, Inc., Case Nos. B320441 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion published) is part
However, Majority And Dissenting Justices Disagreed On Whether Section 998 Applied To A Litigation Ended Through A Settlement. Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B315884 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2024) (published) is an interesting decision involving the interplay between the Song-Beverly Act “lemon law” fee/costs shifting provisions and pretrial offers under
Trial Court Violated Rules Of Court, Rule 3.1702, By Shortening Deadline For Plaintiff To File His Attorney’s Fee Motion. In Javidian v. Subaru of America, Case No. B322136 (2d Dist., Div. 4 February 16, 2024) (unpublished), Song-Beverly Plaintiff and Defendant reached a verbal settlement through mediation – with the parties agreeing the terms would
Plaintiff Was Unable to Collect Arbitration Award For Violations Of The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Leading Her To Successfully Seek Summary Judgment Against Surety Under Veh. Code Section 11711 For Dealership’s Fraudulent Representation In Gonzalez v. Hudson Insurance Co., Case Nos. D080166/D081686 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 13, 2024) (unpublished), auto dealer sold a
Higher Claimed Hourly Rates For Riverside Attorneys Properly Reduced, As Well As Inflated Work Effort Requests. In contrast to the Edmundson decision which we recently posted on, the 4/3 DCA did affirm a substantially reduced fee award under a lemon law case in Jacobs v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. G062739 (4th
Dealt With Fee Denial Under Swimming Pool Fee-Shifting Statute. On July 16, 2023, we posted on Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023), which was unpublished at the time and dealt with an attorney’s fees denial because a plaintiff did not prevail on a statutory swimming pool fee-shifting
Plaintiff Did Obtain Compensatory Damages On Other Claims, But No Need To Award Other Fees Where Plaintiff Did Not Prevail On The Swimming Pool Claims. In Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought claims relating to a swimming pool/spa and other constructions claims. Plaintiff did
Lemon Law Plaintiff Obtained Significantly Less Fees Based On Rejected Section 998 Defense Offer. On December 30, 2022, we posted on Chen v. BMW of North America, a Sixth District unpublished opinion in which a significantly reduced lemon law fees award to a plaintiff, who rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, was found
