The Trial Court Made An Implied Finding, Which Was Supported By Substantial Evidence, That Plaintiff Obtained His Litigation Objective And Was The Prevailing Party.
Civ. Code § 1794(d) allows a prevailing buyer to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of an action under Civ. Code § 1790 et. seq. – the Song-Beverly Warranty Act (commonly known as California’s “lemon law”.
In Giamela v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, Case No. B299729 (2d Dist., Div. 2 September 1, 2020) (unpublished), a Song-Beverly plaintiff, who settled with defendant for the repurchase of plaintiff’s vehicle, moved for section 1794 fees of $144,200 plus a 1.25 multiplier for a total of $180,250, and $5,969.15 in costs – with the trial court awarding the full request minus the requested 1.25 multiplier.
On appeal, defendant argued the fees/costs award had to be reversed because the trial court did not make an express finding that plaintiff was the prevailing party, substantial evidence did not support a finding that plaintiff achieved his litigation objective, and the trial court applied the wrong legal standard if it determined plaintiff was the prevailing party.
The 2/2 DCA affirmed. First, the absence of an express finding is no basis for reversal, and an implied finding – if reached by applying the correct legal standard – must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Second, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s implied finding that plaintiff obtained his litigation objective. Plaintiff’s acceptance of defendant’s repurchase settlement offer supported a logical and reasonable inference that obtaining repurchase was plaintiff’s litigation objective. Finally, defendant failed to meet its obligation to affirmatively show that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard of achieving litigation objective in reaching its implied finding that plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action.
Comments