Consumer Statutes, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Significant Reduction To Prevailing CLRA Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Fees Request And Denial Of Costs Award Was Abuse Of Discretion

The Trial Court Improperly Based Its Fee/Costs Awards Entirely On Defendant’s Counsel’s Arguments Which Were Made Without Any Supporting Evidence.

            In Solis v. MVP Cars, Case No. E075101 (4^th Dist., Div. 2 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), defendant was sued under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750 et seq.) for its failures to perform a smog check on, and register with the DMV, a vehicle it had sold – despite buyer having paid the smog check and registration fees. Six to seven months into the litigation, and after defendant filed a motion to have buyer’s wife added as a plaintiff and the parties had conducted discovery, defendant finally smogged the vehicle and registered it with the DMV.  As a result, plaintiffs then dismissed the lawsuit, but sought $1,045 in costs and $21,360 in attorney fees ($17,800 lodestar with 1.2 multiplier).  The trial court, however – adopting defendant’s opposition claims that the fees/costs request was unjustified because the issues with the vehicle could have been resolved with a phone call and litigation was unnecessary – denied plaintiffs’ request for costs and awarded them only $1,925 in pre-litigation attorney fees. Plaintiffs appealed.

            In a 3-0 opinion, authored by Justice Codrington, the 4/2 DCA reversed – finding the trial court had abused its discretion by improperly resting its significantly reduced fee award entirely on defendant’s counsel’s arguments which were made with no supporting evidence whatsoever.  (Gdowski v. Gdowski, 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 139 (2009) [“Statements and arguments by counsel are not evidence”]; Villacorta v. Cemex Cement, Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1433 (2013) [appellate court will “not consider counsel’s argument in determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict” because “[a]rgument by counsel is not evidence”].)  Additionally, the panel concluded that the trial court’s finding that the matter could have been resolved without litigation lacked evidentiary support given that defendant litigated the matter for at least six months before finally smogging and registering the vehicle.