2 DCA Affirmed Trial Court’s Reduction Of Attorney’s Fees Request In Lemon Law Case For Unnecessary Duplication By Plaintiff’s Attorneys. On September 17, 2019, we posted on Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. B290693 (2d Dist., Div. 7 September 16, 2019), which was unpublished at the time. In that case, a lemon law […]
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 Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. B290693 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 16, 2019) (unpublished) is a situation where the trial judge
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
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
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,
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
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
Admissions On The Merits And As To Sham Allegations Sealed The Result. In Joseph v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. B288641 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 17, 2019) (unpublished), an in pro per vexatious litigant lost a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) suit against CVS after a demurrer was sustained without leave. CVS moved
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
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
