Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Trial Judge Erroneously Denied Prevailing “Lemon Law” Consumer Fees Incurred For Subsequent Work Occurring After Consumer Rejected Initial Settlement Offer And For “Fees On Fees” Work

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

  Car Manufacturer’s First And Second Offers Were Different, And “Fees On Fees” Are Recoverable For Fee Motion Work Under Lemon Law Fee Shifting Provision.      California’s “lemon law” has a fee-shifting provision in favor of a prevailing consumer buyer. (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) Actual time is recoverable under this provision, as long as it […]

Consumer Statutes, Deeds of Trust: Borrower Obtaining Preliminary Injunction Under “Dual Tracking” Prohibition Fee Shifting Statute Erroneously Denied Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Deeds of Trust

  Civil Code Section 2924.12(i) Did Allow Fee Entitlement.      In response to the residential subprime meltdown, the California Legislature prohibited “dual tracking,” namely, recording a notice of trustee’s sale while simultaneously engaging in a loan modification process, with injunctive and damages relief being allowed depending on when the trustee’s sale notice was recorded. Injunctive

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Losing Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims Properly Denied Fee Request Of $337,443

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Plaintiff Was Not Successful and Defendant Fixed Problem Based on CLRA Pre-Suit Notice.      In Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., Case No. G049360 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff sued under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to recover damages for a small discrepancy between a

Consumer Statutes, Costs, Prevailing Party, Section 998: Car Plaintiff In Song-Beverly/Magnuson-Moss Dispute Properly Denied Fees But Entitled To Costs

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

  Car Manufacturer Defendant Prevailed For Fees, But Might Be Liable For Some Routine Costs.      Actually, we can say that counsel for Mercedes-Benz in this case made some good moves as far as mitigating fee/costs exposure. M-B was embroiled in a gripe from a car owner about excessive multiple repairs. Car owner sued, but

Consumer Statutes/Lodestar/Reasonableness Of Fees: Ford’s Oral Opposition To Lemon Law Fee Request Was Unsuccessful As Was Subsequent Appeal

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

  Ford Motor Hit With $50,574.19 Lemon Law Jury Verdict, And Then Hit Again With $342,540.25 In Fees As Well As Costs/Expenses On Top.      Many California consumer statutes, like the lemon laws, have mandatory fee-shifting statutes. Frequently, a winning plaintiff can obtain fee awards that are many times a multiplier of the underlying merits

Allocation/Consumer Statutes: Automobile Purchasers Not Effectively Rescinding Did Not Obtain Reversal Of Adverse Fee Recovery Under Two Consumer Statutes

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  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

Consumer Statutes: Reversal Of Elder Abuse Claim And Per Violation Penalty Under Patient’s Bill Of Rights Requires Remand Look At Substantial Fee Recovery Against Nursing Home Defendant

Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Fees/Costs Not Capped Under Patient’s Blll of Rights But “Per Violation” Reversal Required Relook At Fees Given They Are Based On Results Achieved.      In Nevarrez v. San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre, Case No. B235372 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 4, 2013) (opn. on rehearing/published), a nursing home patient recovered a jury

Consumer Statutes: New Civil Liability Sections Of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act, Effective January 10, 2014, Allow For Recovery Of Costs And Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Lender TILA Duty of Care and Anti-Steering Prohibition Violations Will Trigger Civil Liability.      Passed earlier this year, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to issue rules to establish stronger protections for residential homeowners facing foreclosures (but not involving HELOCs). THE CFPB has done

Scroll to Top