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 engaging in battle with an auto purchaser plaintiff.
Fuller v. FCA US LLC, Case No. B286224 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 2, 2019) (unpublished) involved a situation where an auto purchaser plaintiff in a “lemon law” case obtained a jury award of $109,357.05, She then moved for attorney’s fees under a pro-plaintiff fee shifting statute, Civil Code section 1794(d) as well as a positive 1.5 multiplier. After expressing doubt about whether a multiplier was justified, the trial court awarded the lodestar and requested multiplier to the tune of $327,782.75.
The 2/4 DCA affirmed. Plaintiff’s counsel did a good job of showing why this was not a typical lemon law case based on strategic decisions made by defense counsel and getting the trial judge to admit she was surprised at the verdict (which showed good trial skills). The record at the fee hearing was crucial, getting the lower court to find this was not your typical lemon law case, resulting in a positive multiplier which the defense could not change on appeal.