Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes: $11,425 Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery, Out Of Requested $49,835 (Plus Multiplier), Reversed Where Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Prior Offer Resulted In Added Value And Where Court Improperly Focused On Contingency Retention Amount

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Re-Do Required Based On These Two Errors.             California’s lemon law statute can result in substantial fee awards under the Song-Beverly Act statutory fee-shifting provision.  However, the lodestar standard must be applied, which means an inquiry into the reasonable work even though prior CCP § 998 offers were rejected and irrespective of any inquiry into […]

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Plaintiff Only Suing For Injunctive Relief And Not Proving Damage Liability Under CLRA, Where Accepted 998 Offer Was Silent On Liability, Fees, And Costs, Did Not Give Rise to Fee Recovery

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Case Is A Real Attention Getter With Respect to Acceptance Of 998 Offers Which Are Carefully Drafted.             We like this next case because if offers practitioners on both sides of the aisle an opportunity to carefully craft and accept CCP § 998 offer in certain consumer-oriented areas of the law.  Mikki v. Lifemark Group,

Consumer Statutes, Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $65,000 Attorney’s Fees Award And $7,987.40 Costs Award Under Lemon Law Settlement Stipulation Are Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

Lower Court Properly Harmonized Seemingly Conflicting Terms Of Settlement Stipulation.             In Boykin v. Premier Universal, Inc., Case No. F078689 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished), the parties settled a lemon law case, but reserved the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees for a subsequent motion.  The problem was that the settlement stipulation had conflicting

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $83,000 Fee Award Affirmed To Lemon Law Plaintiffs Because, As Far As Fee Recovery, Post-Offer Conduct Activities Can Give Rise To Lemon Law Further Fee Recovery

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Section 998 Activity Is A Gestalt As Far As Fee Recovery Under The Song-Beverly Act.             Although unpublished, Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. B301772 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 19, 2020) (unpublished) is an interesting case which involved the intersection between the lemon law fee-shifting provision and CCP § 998 offer provision.  In

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $278,057 Lemon Law Fee Award And $56,882.89 Costs Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

The Reason—A Prejudgment Interest Award Of $2,600 Beat The Defense CCP § 998 Offer; Yes, It Was That Close—With Around $335,000 In Fees/Costs Being The Burden At The End.             The Song-Beverly Act (better known as California’s lemon law) has a pro-plaintiff fee shifting provision; however, it is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multipliers: Santana Decision Now Published

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

Apportionment Between Song-Beverly Act Fees/Costs And Other Causes Of Action, Where Fees Are Not Permitted, Not Necessary Where Claims Are Inextricably Intertwined.               In our September 29, 2020 post, we discussed Santana v. FCA US, LLC, Case Nos. G057244/G058020 (4th Dist., Div. 3), which was unpublished at the time.             In Santana,

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $284,482.48 Attorney’s Fee/Costs Awards, Allocated Between Two Groups Of Defendants, Affirmed Under Consumer Statutes and Section 1717

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Inadequate Record, Discretionary Apportionment Principles, And Failure To Show Abuse Of Discretion Led To Affirmance Of Awards.             Defendants apparently were shocked by a trial judge awarding a combined $284,482.48 in attorney’s fees and costs against two groups of defendants and in favor of a plaintiff in a case alleging that defendants failed to disclose

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Lodestar, Multiplier: Although Fraudulent Concealment Compensatory And Punitive Damages Were Reversed, $510,637.87 Fee/Costs Award Under Song-Beverly Act Case Affirmed On Appeal

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

Failure To Apportion/Double Counting Lodestar And Enhancement Arguments Not Supported By The Record.             In many cases, a fees-seeking litigant needs to apportion between fee entitlement and non-fee entitlement claims, unless the thrust of the case involved a fee entitlement case so that it was inextricably intertwined with a non-fee case.  If so, even a

Consumer Statutes: Reversal Of Substantial Punitive Damages Award Required Reversal Of $953,793.90 CLRA/Song-Beverly Act Fee Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Compensatory Award Was $72,564.04, Song-Beverly Act Civil Penalties Were $141,973.30, and Punitive Damages Award Was $725,640.40 (After Plaintiff Accepted A Remitted Amount From A $1,451,973.30 Jury Punitive Award).             Margeson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. B287445 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 22, 2020) (unpublished) involved a substantial jury verdict and large attorney’s fees award

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Attorney Fees Of $144,200 Plus Costs Of $5,969.15 Awarded Under Section 1794 To Song-Beverly Plaintiff Affirmed On Appeal Despite Lack of Prevailing Party Ruling

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Trial Court Made An Implied Finding, Which Was Supported By Substantial Evidence, That Plaintiff Obtained His Litigation Objective And Was The Prevailing Party.             Civ. Code § 1794(d) allows a prevailing buyer to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of an action under Civ. Code § 1790

Scroll to Top