Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Where Contextual Reading Of Defense 998 Offer In Lemon Law Case Showed Defense Beat The Ultimate Judgment Based On Offer Terms, Matter Had To Be Remanded To Have Trial Judge Determine Preoffer And Postoffer Costs Due To Each Side

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

998 Offer Allowed For Costs/Fees to Plaintiff, Such That This Could Not Be “Double Dipped” Added To The Base 998 Offer Amount; Otherwise, Duplication Existed. Slater v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. G064350 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2026) (unpublished) is highly suggested reading for lemon law defense attorneys on how to craft an

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To CLRA Settling Plaintiff Reversed And Remanded To See If Plaintiff Achieved His Litigation Objectives In Settling An Alleged Mislabeling Tequila Ingredient Case

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

A Final Determination On The Merits Was Not Required In CLRA Cases, Unlike Unruh Or Disabled Persons Act Matters. In Garcia v. SouthNorte Spirits LLC, Case No. B345897 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 21, 2026) (unpublished), a plaintiff bringing a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) case for tequila ingredient mislabeling reached a settlement for $2,500

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lower Court’s 87.6% Reduction In A Lemon Law Fee Request Was Reversed As An Abuse Of Discretion Based On The Record On The Lodestar Analysis

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Awarding $15,000 In A Lemon Law Case Requesting $81,455.83 In Fees/Costs Was Not Fair And Required A Revisit. In Rosales v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. G063792 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 22, 2026) (unpublished), a settlement was reached in a lemon law case where attorney’s fees became the important issue at the back

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Tidrick Opinion Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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29, 2025, we posted on Tidrick v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. G063186 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 22, 2025) (now published), but unpublished at the time.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

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Awarding Fresno Rates To Attorney Litigating In Orange County And Slashing Fees/Cost Request By 82.9% Had Its Award Reversed And Remanded On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Consumer Statutes: Prevailing Defendant In Lemon Law Case Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Consumer Statutes

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

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Because Section 998 Does Apply To Lemon Law Cases, Fee/Costs Award Had To Be Reduced By Post-Fees Covered By Defense 998 Offer

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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

Consumer Statutes: 2/4 DCA Reverses Trial Court’s Denial For Untimely Filing Of $119,470.98 Fees Motion Made By Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes

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

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $264,440 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed Against Bond Surety Defendant That Issued $50,000 Bond To Auto Dealer Who Used Fraudulent Tactics To Sell A Used Car To Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees: Plaintiff Accepting CCP § 998 Settlement Offer In Lemon Law Case Was Properly Awarded Drastically Reduced Attorney’s Fees Where Inflated Billings Were Demonstrated

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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

Scroll to Top