Cases: Consumer Statutes

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. […]

Consumer Statutes: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Against One Unsuccessful Cross-Defendant, But Other Cross-Defendants Correctly Denied Fees Under Consumer Statutes And Civil Code Section 1717 Even Though Cross-Complainant

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Cross-Complainant Did Win $140,550.51, Slightly Reduced Lodestar Enhanced By 1.5 Multiplier, Against One Cross-Defendant.             Professional Collection Consultants v. Lujan, Case Nos. A147922/A148925 (1st Dist, Div. 2 May 22, 2018) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff filed to collect upon a credit card debt, with defendant responding by filing a cross-complaint

Consumer Statutes, Section 998: Defense Served A Proper 998 Offer With Valid Terms For Settlement Under The Song-Beverly Act

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Section 998

Defense Agreed To Pay $7,500 For Plaintiff’s Fees And Costs Or, Alternatively, An Amount To Be Determined On Noticed Motion.          A valid CCP § 998 offer to compromise is a valid cost-shifting mechanism under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (commonly known as California’s “lemon law”). Kia Motors America, Inc. offered to pay plaintiff $30,000.01 plus

Consumer Statutes:  Manufacturer Confidential Settlement Where Dealer Add-On Compensation Was Main Form Of Relief Justified Denial Of Song-Beverly Act Fees

Cases: Consumer Statutes

However, Plaintiff Was Entitled To Routine Costs As “Net Monetary Judgment” Prevailing Party.             For all consumer attorneys, the next case should be of interest as far as what attorney’s fees can be awarded under the Song-Beverly Act where confidential settlements are involved and what standard governs the award of fees to the statutory “prevailing

Allocation/Consumer Statutes:  Joint And Several Liability Fees And Costs Award Under Consumer Statutes Reversed Because Apportionment Was Required Between Car Dealership and Financing Company

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Consumer Statutes

FTC Holder Rule Under Consumer Legal Remedies Act And Car Dealership’s Tender Under the Automobile Sales Finance Act Were At Issue.             There are many California consumer statutes which allow fee shifting, mainly to the prevailing party—so that a fair amount of them are bilateral in nature (unlike in the employment context, favoring the employee). 

Consumer Statutes/Settlement:  Medina Decision Now Published

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement

$128,004.50 Fee Award Sustained Under Consumer Fee-Shifting Statutes Where $8,600 Was The Settlement Amount.             On September 20, 2017, we posted, and co-contributor Marc on his California Mediation and Arbitration blog posted, on Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., Case No. D069820 which was unpublished at the time.  In that case, the appellate court

Consumer Statutes/Settlement:  Settling Car Wrongful Repossession Plaintiff Properly Awarded $128,004.50 In Attorney’s Fees And $3,738.87 In Costs Even Though Defendants Settled For $8,600

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Settlement

Specific Settlement Agreement Terms Shot Down The Defense’s “No Fee Entitlement” Argument.             The defense in this wrongful repossession action under various consumer statutes with fee-shifting provisions was likely shocked by a trial court’s award of $128,004.50 in attorney’s fees and $3,738.87 in costs given that the settlement amount to plaintiff was only $8,600 subject

Consumer Statutes/Costs:  2/2 DCA In Unpublished Decision Has Great Review Of Routine Costs Rules

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Costs

Appellate Court Also Has Specific Discussion On Reasonable Photocopy Expenses, PowerPoint Technician Costs, And Court Reporter Fee Charges             We have to say that the 2/2 DCA’s unpublished decision in Haroun v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. B272279 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 5, 2017) (unpublished) has a great discussion of general routine

Consumer Statutes: Third District Decides Broad Interpretation Of Remedial Swimming Pool Construction Statute Should Not Be Adopted And That Plaintiff Did Not Prevail

Cases: Consumer Statutes

We Explore This Decision’s Reasoning In Our Comment.                                                                                                  Movie:  The Drowning Pool.  1975.              In El Dorado Custom Pools v. Stein, Case No. C075500 (3d Dist. July 10, 2017), a plaintiff contracted with a pool company to built a pool on his property.  Pool company sued for breach of contract, quantum meruit and other

Consumer Statutes: Potentially Prevailing Plaintiff On Appeal May Have Entitlement To Fee Recovery Under CLRA Where Only Sought Injunctive Relief Despite Rejecting Defense Correction Notice

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Plaintiff Is Not Disqualified From Fee Recovery Given Only Injunctive Relief Requested Under CLRA Claim; Matter Remanded For District Court To Determine Prevailing Party Status.     Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, No. 14-56305 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (published) involved a situation where a plaintiff won a summary judgment and sustained it on appeal in

Scroll to Top