Consumer Legal Remedies Act: Kim Fee Dispute Has Finally Come Home to Roost

Second District, Division 8 Affirms $84,500 Fee Award to Prevailing Plaintiff in CLRA Action.

After two appeals, plaintiff finally has won finality with respect to a $84,500 fee award entered in his favor under the CLRA after winning a battle against a Porsche Turbo Coupe seller for a refund because the car needed various repairs. Plaintiff sought fees and costs of $179,031 (based upon a claimed $113,760 lodestar, which was requested to be enhanced with a 1.5 multiplier). The trial court awarded plaintiff $84,500 (based on a 1.5 multiplier on some work), over vociferous objections by defendant, which appealed.

At last, the fee award was affirmed in Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, Case No. B214656 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 26, 2010) (unpublished), bringing finality to a very hard fought controversy.

Before addressing the defense challenges on appeal, the appellate court reminded all of us about the syllogistic analysis to be applied in statutory fee-shifting disputes: (1) calculate the lodestar¹; (2) determine if the lodestar needs to be adjusted by positive or negative multipliers; (3) make sure “double count” factors are not used; and (4) make a decision.

The defense challenge to the lodestar boiled down to contending that the trial court had to explain its mathematical calculations in support of the award. Because no request was made below, the trial court was not required to do so. (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4^th 140, 156 n. 7 (2006).)

Defendant next argued that the trial court failed to precisely articulate how it applied the multiplier enhancement factors. Wrong, said the Court of Appeal. The lower court did factually demonstrate the basis for application of an enhancement, and that is all the law requires. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, 92 Cal.App.4^th 819, 835 (2001).)

Finally, the defense was not happy with the trial court awarding costs on the first appeal. Even though prior awards denying costs to plaintiff had been reversed, the effect was that no orders were entered such that the prior denial had no effect and leaving the trial court to redo the decision. (Cf. Weisenburg v. Cragholm, 5 Cal.3d 892, 896 (1971).)

¹ Death Star: