Cases: Consumer Statutes

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 D080166/D081686 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 13, 2024) (unpublished), auto dealer sold a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

Consumer Statutes: Lee v. Cardiff Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Dealt With Fee Denial Under Swimming Pool Fee-Shifting Statute.             On July 16, 2023, we posted on Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023), which was unpublished at the time and dealt with an attorney’s fees denial because a plaintiff did not prevail on a statutory swimming pool fee-shifting

Consumer Statutes: Plaintiff Not Recovering On A Majority Of Her Swimming Pool/Spa Claims Was Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Business & Professions Code Section 7168

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Plaintiff Did Obtain Compensatory Damages On Other Claims, But No Need To Award Other Fees Where Plaintiff Did Not Prevail On The Swimming Pool Claims.             In Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought claims relating to a swimming pool/spa and other constructions claims.  Plaintiff did

Consumer Statutes: Plaintiff In Lemon Law Case Did Not Beat 998 Offer Such That Most Post-Offer Fees And Costs Were Properly Disallowed

Cases: Consumer Statutes

$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

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $143,624.59 Costs Award To Lemon Law Defendant, Based On A Successful CCP § 998 Offer, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

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

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC’s Holder Rule Does Not Limit Recovery Against Lender Where State Prevailing Party Fee Statute Allows For Recovery Of Fees By Installment Credit Sale Debtor

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

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

Consumer Statutes: Split Ninth Circuit Panel Decides That Attorney’s Fees Can Be Included In Determining $50,000 Amount In Controversy Jurisdictional Threshold Under The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes

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

Consumer Statutes, Preemption: FTC Holder Rule Was To Be Applied Retroactively Such That Attorney’s Fees Denial Should Be Reversed

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Preemption

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,

Scroll to Top