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 On December 30, 2022, we posted on Chen v. BMW of North America, a Sixth District unpublished opinion in which a significantly reduced lemon law fees award to a plaintiff, who rejected a defense CCP § 998 offer, was found […]
$53,509.51 In Pre-Offer Fees Were Allowed, Not Plaintiff’s Almost $470,000 Fees/Costs Request. Under recent posts, we have shown how a good defense offer under CCP § 998 will not pay dividends for a plaintiff who does not properly assess it and does not accept the offer. That lesson again resonated in Chen v. BMW
Bad Faith And Lack Of Specificity Arguments Rejected. California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, known as the Lemon Law, has a pro-plaintiff attorney’s fees provision. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can tilt the risk against a defendant by cutting off post-offer fees and costs if the 998 offer is properly crafted. Plus, the
California Supreme Court Resolves Split In DCA Thinking, Disapproving Lafferty And Spikener Decisions. In Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc., Case No. S267576 (Cal. Supreme Ct. May 26, 2022) (published), our state supreme court confronted the FTC’s Holder Rule which requires consumer credit contracts to contain warnings that (1) all defenses against the seller of
Dissent Disagrees; However, Because No Fee Entitlement Was Available Under Michigan State Statutes, Fees Were Not Includable So Federal Jurisdiction Was Not Present—A Conclusion Endorsed By All The Panel Justices. The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) has a $50,000 amount-in-controversy jurisdictional threshold (exclusive of interests and costs), computed on the basis of all claims
Civil Code Section 1495.5 Recent Enactments Sealed The Result. The Fifth District, in Reyes v. Beneficial State Bank, Case No. F080827 (5th Dist. Mar. 2022) (published), had to confront a FTC Holder Rule argument that it capped attorney’s fees as “recovery” by its terms. The appellate court, relying on Pulliam (see our Feb. 2,
Despite Finding Defendant Made A Proper Offer Of Correction, CLRA Injunctive Relief and Fee Entitlement Under The Lemon Law Justified Entry Of The Trial Judge’s Fee Award. In DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise, Inc., Case No. H046718 (6th Dist. Mar. 16, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff suing for vehicle problems under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon
The Panel Found No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Finding That The Hourly Rate And Number Of Hours Requested Were Excessive For A Case That Was Not Complex And Involved Little, If Any, Law And Motion Work. In Mallonee v. Toyota Motor Sales, Case No. E075088 (4th Dist., Div. 2 March 10, 2022)
Goes To Show How Recoverable Fees Can Eclipse The Merits Award. Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. C089603 (3d Dist. Feb. 8, 2022) (partially published; fee discussion not published) illustrates how statutory fee-shifting provisions, in this case, a lemon law Song-Beverly Act statute can be more oppressive than the merits judgment with respect
2/8 DCA Agreed With Pulliam That The Holder Rule Cap Does Not Preclude Recovery Of Attorney Fees And Further Determines That The Cap Does Not Preclude Recovery Of Costs, Nonstatutory Costs, Or Prejudgment Interest. In Melendez v. Westlake Services, LLC, Case No. B306976 (2d Dist., Div. 8 January 28, 2022) (published), plaintiff who purchased
