Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: 4/1 DCA Decides That Pragmatic, Litigation Objective Test Governs Lemon Law Cases, Not The Net Monetary Award Test Under CCP § 1032

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Offer By The Defense Was Too Uncertain—A “Moving Target.”             In Duff v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. D078100 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2022) (published), the 4/1 DCA departed company from its prior approach as far as awarding lemon law fees to a prevailing plaintiff under Civil Code […]

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Significant Reduction To Prevailing CLRA Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees Request And Denial Of Costs Award Was Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Court Improperly Based Its Fee/Costs Awards Entirely On Defendant’s Counsel’s Arguments Which Were Made Without Any Supporting Evidence.             In Solis v. MVP Cars, Case No. E075101 (4th Dist., Div. 2 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), defendant was sued under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750 et seq.) for its failures

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Because Defense Section 998 Offers Were Valid, Trial Judge Had To Restudy Costs And Fee Rulings To Determine If The First Defense Offer Was In Good Faith

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Costs And Fee Awards Will Have To Be Reexamined.             In Covert v. FCA USA, LLC, Case No. B303663 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 4, 2022) (unpublished), an automaker was found liable to the vehicle owner for $48,416 under a Song-Beverly Act lemon law case.  However, earlier, automaker made two separate CCP § 998 offers

Consumer Statutes, Settlement: Attorney’s Fees Award In Lemon Law Case Affirmed As To Settling Party’s Responsibility, With Other Party Not Agreeing To Pay Fees Not Responsible

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement

Given Merits Judgment Was Paid, Other Party Was Not Responsible For Fees.             The next case we post on, Carter v. Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Case No. G058205 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 14, 2021) (unpublished), shows how care needs to be given to drafting settlement agreements as far as preserving attorney’s fees exposure to

Consumer Statutes, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Reduced Song-Beverly Attorney Fees By Almost $100,000 Because Plaintiffs Rejected § 998 Offer That Was Only $8,500 Less Than Ultimate Settlement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Court Improperly Cut Off Fees Incurred After Plaintiffs’ Rejection Of The § 998 Offer Instead Of Engaging In A Lodestar Analysis Of The Entire Case Pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d).             In Reck v. FCA US LLC, Case No. A157966 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2021) (published), the trial court awarded

Consumer Statutes, Multiplier, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding $20,000 Fee Award Out Of Requested $40,113.75 Base Lodestar

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

The Problem Was That The Case Was Routine Such That Hours Billed For “Cut And Paste” Activities Were Excessive, With A 25% Positive Multiplier Properly Denied.             In Fishback v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B298677 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 14, 2021) (unpublished), a lemon law plaintiff was awarded a lesser sum of attorney’s

Consumer Statutes: Reversal of Lemon Law Compensatory Damages Component For A Limited Restudy Also Required A Limited Re-Do On The Fee Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes

$29,357.35 Lemon Law Fee Award May Need To Be Increased Somewhat On Remand.             We have to say that appellate courts try to “telegraph” to litigants what needs to be done when there is a limited remand where fee recovery is involved.  That is what happened in Crayton v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. B294528

Consumer Statutes: Reversal And Remand Of $45,378.99 Judgment Entered In Favor Of Lemon Law Plaintiff Due To Erroneous Special Jury Instruction Necessitates Reversal Of $179,510 In Attorneys’ Fees Awarded To Plaintiff

Cases: Consumer Statutes

The Trial Court’s Error In Giving The Jury Plaintiff’s Special Instruction That Took Out Of Context The Statutory Requisites For Tolling Express Warranties, As Are Properly Embodied In CACI 3231, Was Prejudicial.             In Nunez v. FCA US LLC, Case Nos. B297453/B299208 (2d Dist., Div. 8 February 26, 2021) (published), plaintiff brought a Song-Beverly Consumer

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Multipliers, Preemption: Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Winning Only $21,957.25 In Damages At Jury Trial Properly Awarded $169,602 In Attorney Fees, Inclusive Of .2 Multiplier, Against Dealership And Finance Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Preemption

Apportionment Was Not Necessary Due To Intertwined Claims, Multiplier Was Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Contingency Risk, And – Contrary To Lafferty And Spikener – 2/5 DCA Determined That The Holder Rule Does Not Limit The Attorney Fees A Plaintiff May Recover From A Creditor-Assignee.             For a great discussion on the Holder Rule cap and

Scroll to Top