Cases: Consumer Statutes

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             In Lee v. Cardiff, Case No. A163817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought claims relating to a swimming pool/spa and other constructions claims.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,

Consumer Statutes: $406,154.25 Fee Award Under The Song-Beverly Act And The CLRA Affirmed Despite Reversal of CLRA Restitutionary Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes

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

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/2 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Almost $400,000 Haircut To Prevailing Song-Beverly Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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)

Consumer Statutes: $643,615 Lemon Law Fee Recovery Stands Even Though $227,715.60 Compensatory/Civil Penalty/Punitive Damages Award Was At Issue

Cases: Consumer Statutes

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

Scroll to Top