Cases: Consumer Statutes

Consumer Statutes: Denial Of Fee Award To Prevailing Defendant Under Consumer Deceptive Practice Fee-Shifting Statute Reversed And Remanded Because Prosecution Of An Action By Consumer In Bad Faith Encompasses Both Filing and Pursuit Of The Action

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Lower Court Improperly Denied Request In Finding Statute Only Applied To Filing Of An Action.            In Holloway v. Alliance Environmental Group, Case No. E066365 (4th Dist., Div. Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff was defensed after a 7-week jury trial which she brought against a testing company and abatement company in a residential asbestos abatement […]

Consumer Statutes, Costs, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/2 DCA Reverses Fee Award Under Song-Beverly Act Where Trial Judge Seemed To Base Award On Proportionality Of Fees To Modest Damages Award

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

Also, Denial Of Trial Transcript Expenses Reversed Because They Were Compensable Under Song-Beverly Act Costs/Fee-Shifting Provision.             Although occurring in the civil rights context, we foresaw in our December 20, 2015 post on Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 102-104 (2015) that it would have much more significance in other substantive areas.

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Plaintiff Winning Only $2,636.50 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Lemon Law Case Was Entitled To Reversal And Remand

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Trial Judge Improperly Imposed CCP § 998 Sanctions When Offer Was Improper, Such That Cut-Off Fee Determination Was An Abuse of Discretion.             In Etcheson v. FCA US LLC, Case No. D072793 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff brought a “lemon law” action relating to a $40,000 purchase of a 2010 Chrysler

Consumer Statutes, Equity: Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Affirms Denial Of Fees In Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Case Where Plaintiff Only Recovered $1,000 Statutory Damages But Sought Recovery Of $130,410 In Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Equity

Fifth Circuit Sided With Two Other Circuits That Fees Can Be Denied In Unusual Circumstances, With Shocking Nature Of The Request Plus Conspiracy To Manufacture The Claim Solidifying The Fee Denial.             Davis v. Credit Bureau of the South, No. 17-41136 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018) (per curiam) demonstrates how federal courts, even under a

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Lemon Law Fee Award Which Was A 78% Reduction From Request Reversed And Remanded Because Post-998 Offer Fees Should Have Been Considered And Appellate Court Unclear Whether Proper Lodestar Analysis Conducted By Lower Court

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Size Of The Reduction Obviously Bothered Appellate Court, Although Its Statements On Level Of Detail Of State Court Fee Award Seems To Point Toward Adoption Of More Detailed Federal Court Analysis.             McCullough v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. D073330 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 9, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting “lemon law” case where

Consumer Statutes, Deeds Of Trust: Trial Court’s Award Of Almost $13,000 To Borrower Obtaining Preliminary Injunction Under California Homeowner Bill Of Rights (HBOR) Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Deeds of Trust

Fee Award Based On Interim Success Sustained.             We have posted earlier on the sequence of events in Sese v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C083724 (3d Dist. Oct. 31, 2018) (unpublished). Earlier, the borrower had obtained an appellate decision determining that HBOR authorized an award of legal fees to borrowers who obtained a

Consumer Statutes, Landlord-Tenant, Section 1717: Tenant Prevailing On Common Law Residential Inhabitability Claim Limited To Contractually-Capped Fees Of $1,600

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Although More Fees Potentially Allowable Under Statutory Inhabitability Claim, Jury Did Not Base Its Verdict On The Statute Such That Contractually Capped Amount Was The Proper Award.             This next case involves an intersection between the parties’ contractually capped fee recovery under lease agreements and potentially more expansive damages under a statute allowing recovery for

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party: Where Car Manufacturer Unconditionally Agreed To Repurchase Option And Car Purchaser Gambled On Getting Civil Penalties/Other Relief Under Lemon Law Statute, Car Purchaser Did Not Prevail So As To Be Entitled To No Fe

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party

Car Purchasers “Gambling” On Other Remedies Other Than Repurchase Might Have Repercussions – No Fee Recovery!             This case counsels that car purchasers and their attorneys in lemon law cases (equally applicable to situations involving consumer items other than cars as well) need to carefully think about rejecting a repurchase capitulation by a car manufacturer

Allocation, Consumer Statutes, Costs: Consumer Plaintiff’s Win Against Car Assignee Did Require Remand Of Attorney’s Fees Decision To Allocate To The One Prevailing Claim Against Appealing Defendant And Required Rev. Of Expert Witness Fees As Costs

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

Appealing Defendant Picked Its Spots On Appeal, Awarded As Being Selective!             This next case is an illustration where a non-prevailing defendant on peripheral claims appealed selectively on an adverse attorney’s fees and costs award, handsomely awarded by being discreet in what it appealed.             In Ajis v. Foreman Financial, Inc., Case No. B280208 (2d

Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statute: “The Holder Rule” Governing Commercial Lenders Under Consumer Installment Sale Contract Could Not Be Saddled With Attorney’s Fees Exposure

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

However, Lender Was Responsible For Routine Costs As The Non-Prevailing Party.                 In actuality, this is really a fee-shifting limitation and quasi-legislative limitation on consumer recovery post.             “The Holder Rule, 16 Code of Fed. Regs. § 433.2, was prominent in dictating the result in Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. C080535 (3d Dist.

Scroll to Top