4/3 DCA Unpublished Decision Now On The Books! On June 14, 2015, we posted on McKenzie v. Ford Motor Co., a Fourth District, Division 3 decision reversing a fee award under California’s lemon law based on a lower court’s erroneous determination that two 998 offers were similar enough to deny an award of […]
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
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
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 In Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., Case No. G049360 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff sued under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to recover damages for a small discrepancy between a
Owner Was Not Prevailing Party in Lemon Law Case Because Owner Did Not Recoup Main Objective in the Form of Civil Penalty. On January 3, 2015, we posted on MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. B251752 (2d Dist., Div. 8), which held among other things that a car owner in a lemon
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
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
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
His Comments Indicated the Case Needed To Be Settled, More About Fees Than the Merits. Vasquez v. Superior Court, Case No. G048890 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where the appellate court granted disqualification of a judge from presiding over a lemon law case. The reason? Among other
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
