A Final Determination On The Merits Was Not Required In CLRA Cases, Unlike Unruh Or Disabled Persons Act Matters.
In Garcia v. SouthNorte Spirits LLC, Case No. B345897 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 21, 2026) (unpublished), a plaintiff bringing a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) case for tequila ingredient mislabeling reached a settlement for $2,500 in exchange for a dismissal but a reservation that he could seek fees and costs as determined by the trial court (although there was no admission of liability by the defense). Plaintiff moved for fees, with the defense principally arguing that there needed to be a finding of liability under CLRA, just as in Unruh and Disabled Persons Act (DPA) cases, for purposes of prevailing party fee recovery. The lower court was persuaded by this argument.
The fee denial on this basis was reversed on appeal and remanded. Based on Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 149 Cal.App.4th 170 (2007) and Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 120 (2006), there was no need to have a liability determination under CLRA, as in Unruh Act or DPA cases, given that plaintiff met the other CLRA requirements for standing to bring an award. Rather, the proper inquiry was whether plaintiff prevailed by achieving his litigation objectives. That issue had to be remanded for a redetermination; and, if the litigation objective framework was satisfied, then the court had to decide the amount of fees and costs that plaintiff should recover.