Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Arbitrations: Consumer Contract Authorizing Fees Runs Afoul Of CCP § 1284.3 Statutory Protections

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Consumer Statutes

  Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Arbitration Fee Award on Public Policy Grounds on Appeal.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3(a) is a pro-consumer arbitration provision that states an arbitrator/neutral cannot administer an arbitration for a consumer in a way that makes the consumer responsible to pay attorney’s fees or costs if he/she is […]

Consumer Statutes And Section 998: Plaintiff’s Waiver Of Fees In Accepting 998 Offer Binds Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division 3 Also Finds 998 Fee Waiver In Not Illegal under California’s Lemon Law.      The next case, involving the interplay between Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offers and California consumer/civil fee shifting statutes, basically holds plaintiff to the bargain reached when he accepted the 998 offer made by defendants.     

Non-Taxable Federal Costs: District Courts Can Award Non-Taxable Costs Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Ninth Circuit So Holds in 2-1 Decision; Dissent Thinks Majority Decision Allows Recovery of Non-Taxable Costs as Attorney’s Fees in Most Fee-Shifting Statutes.      The next case is an interesting one, provoking a 2-1 decision on an important issue: when are non-taxable costs awardable as attorney’s fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. The question did not

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Costs: Prevailing Defendant Cannot Be Awarded Costs Unless The Plaintiff Brought The Action In Bad Faith And For Harassment Purposes

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

$6,511.46 Costs Award Against Plaintiff Reversed, Because Bad Faith/Harassment Is Necessary Predicate For Adverse Costs Award in Favor of Prevailing Defendant.      In Rouse v. Law Offices of Rory Clark, Case No. 09-55146 (9th Cir. May 3, 2010) (for publication), a district judge awarded $6,511.46 in routine costs to a prevailing defendant in a Fair

Lemon Law: $170,000 Attorney Fee Recovery Sustained In Song-Beverly Act Case Involving Mobilehome

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

Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates.      In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers

Rees-Levering Automobile And Sales Finance Act: First District Affirms Fee Recovery Lodestar Of $83,346 For Lead Attorney, But Rejects 1.5 Multiplier

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers

  Court of Appeal Also Rejects Asymmetrical Interpretation of Fee-Shifting Provision.      The next case, Alarcon v. Fireside Bank, Case Nos. A117148 & A118566 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2010) (unpublished), pitted two different statutes against each other, both contained in the Rees-Levering Automobile and Sales Finance Act (ASFA), Civil Code section 2981 et

In The News . . . . McCourts’ Divorce Fees Pile Up, Large “Lemon Law” Award Against Mercedes-Benz In Wisconsin, And Class Member Objects To Class Action Settlement Garnering Only Fees For Class Counsel

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Family Law

$19 Million in Fee Spent in McCourt’s Divorce.      Frank McCourt has estimated his divorce-related expenses at $5-$10 million, while Jamie McCourt has estimated her expenses as $9 million (with Jamie asking Frank to pay them), all in the on-going and apparently acrimonious divorce proceeding between Los Angeles Dodger owner Frank and former officer Jamie.

Consumer Fee-Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Obtains Fee Recovery In Lemon Law Case Against GM

Cases: Consumer Statutes

    Second District, Division 1 Affirms Substantial Judgment in Favor of Lemon Law Plaintiff.       California’s Lemon Law, codified in the Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), has a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of prevailing plaintiffs.  (See Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)  The next decision affirmed a substantial judgment, inclusive of compensatory

Consumer Statutes: Attorney’s Fees Not Authorized To Prevailing Party Under CCP § 527.8 For Winning Harassment Injunction

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Court of Appeal Also Affirms Refusal to Award Fees Under Anti-SLAPP Fee Shifting Provision or CCP § 527.6, Also Rebuffing Constitutional Challenges to § 527.8.      Here is an interesting decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal involving a refusal to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a rather unusual harassment injunction

Scroll to Top