Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge Did Not Abuse His Discretion By Awarding $73,864 In Lemon Law Fees Out Of A Requested $191,688.75

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Case Settled For $85,000, With Duplicative Efforts Properly Justifying Lower Court Reduction And With 2/7 DCA Panel Disagreeing With Another Court That Particular Reduction Articulation Applied Outside Of Civil Rights Context.             Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. B290693 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 16, 2019) (unpublished) is a situation where the trial judge […]

Consumer Statutes, Deeds Of Trust: Third District Agrees That TRO Relief Can Justify Fee Recovery To Prevailing Borrower Under The California Homeowner Bill Of Rights Even If Borrower Loses Later Preliminary Injunction

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Deeds of Trust

This Decision Tracks The Reasoning Of The Fifth District In Hardie.             In Bustos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C085657 (3d Dist. Aug. 28, 2019) (partially published), the Third District Court of Appeal agreed that a borrower obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO) under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) for a

Consumer Statutes: $296,055 Fee Award To Prevailing Lemon Law Vehicle Plaintiff Was Not Disproportionate Or Shocking When Jury Awarded $101,909.52 In Damages

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Trial Judge Did Fashion An Award Less Than The $413,866.50 Fee Request.             Lemon law cases under the Song-Beverly Act can lead to significant fee exposure given a fee-shifting provision liberally interpreted to further the remedial nature of the Act in favor of vehicle purchasers.  That large fee exposure happened here, much to the chagrin

Consumer Statutes: 2/2 DCA Reverses 50% Reduction Of Requested Lodestar Fees To Prevailing Lemon Law Plaintiff Based On Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Informal Settlement Offer

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Defense Should Have Served A CCP §998 Offer As A Mechanism To Curb Requested Fees.             Plaintiff prevailed in a Song-Beverly Act auto case by accepting a settlement offer for $72,000 plus allowing the lower court to determine prevailing party fees to plaintiff.  (The settlement amount was almost twice the amount of the car.)  Earlier,

Consumer Statutes, Multipliers: $327,782.75 Lemon Law Fee Award, Inclusive Of A 1.5 Positive Multiplier, Affirmed On Appeal Where $109,357.05 Was Compensatory Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Multipliers

Plaintiff’s Counsel Showed Why Defense Maneuvers And Jury Verdict Made The Case Beyond A Typical Lemon Law Case.             We have said this frequently in the past on prior blogs, but for clients and practitioners defending Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “lemon law” cases, you need to be attuned to fee exposure, including positive multipliers, when

Consumer Statutes, Lodestar: Lodestar Analysis Governs A Song-Beverly Act Fee Recovery Despite A Contingency Fee Arrangement

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Lodestar

Contingency Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, But It Is No Dispositive Indicator.             Litigants and their counsel in lemon law cases must keep in mind that the there is an attorney’s fees shifting provision, Civil Code section 1794(d), which allows fees to the prevailing product buyer “based on actual time reasonably expended, determined by the

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $101,848.75 Fees/Costs Award Under Lemon Law Statute Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Underlying Settlement Amount Was $40,197.88.             We have many times posted that attorney’s fees/costs can easily eclipse the underlying merits determination.   Here we have a case demonstrating that exact result in a car “lemon law” case.             In Muro v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. B285747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Reversal Of Fees Awarded To Borrowers Who Obtained Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale But Submitted Procedurally Defective Fee Request

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Remand For Further Proceedings Gives Borrowers A Second Chance At Fees Allowed Under Civ. Code § 2924.12 (h) If They Choose To Bring Properly Noticed Motion         Section 2924.12 was enacted in 2012, and is commonly known as the Homeowner Bill of Rights. It was intended to address California’s foreclosure crisis and prohibit against “dual

Scroll to Top