Consumer Statutes, Section 998: $101,848.75 Fees/Costs Award Under Lemon Law Statute Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Underlying Settlement Amount Was $40,197.88.

            We have many times posted that attorney’s fees/costs can easily eclipse the underlying merits determination.   Here we have a case demonstrating that exact result in a car “lemon law” case.

            In Muro v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. B285747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff settled a car “lemon law” matter with defendant for $40,197.88 after a lot of litigation activity (even including a CCP § 998 offer by Chrysler).  Later, after a settlement entered into at the final status conference, plaintiff moved for an attorney’s fees award of $157,517.50 (inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier), given that the lemon law has a pro-consumer fee-shifting statute.  The defense argued that no more than $2,982.50 in fees were justified based on a 998 offer which was subject to some debate.  Ultimately, the trial judge awarded $101,848.75 in fees and costs to plaintiff (with $96,937.50 being fees under the lemon law fee-shifting statute).

            The problem here was that Chrysler’s section 998 offer was found to be deficient because it was unclear, such that plaintiff’s rejection of the offer was not unreasonable.  (Etcheson v. FCA US LLC, 30 Cal.App.5^th 831, 836, 838-839 (2018).)  Once that hurdle was surmounted, Chrysler did not challenge specific fee requests such that the amount awarded was no abuse of discretion.