Despite Finding Defendant Made A Proper Offer Of Correction, CLRA Injunctive Relief and Fee Entitlement Under The Lemon Law Justified Entry Of The Trial Judge’s Fee Award.
In DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise, Inc., Case No. H046718 (6th Dist. Mar. 16, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff suing for vehicle problems under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Lemon Law) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) obtained a jury verdict that defendant violated both Acts, determining that plaintiff was entitled to an award of $36,192.79 as well as injunctive relief under the CLRA. The trial judge awarded plaintiff $406,154.25 in attorney’s fees, the lodestar request plus a 1.5 multiplier. On appeal, the 6th District vacated the CLRA jury verdict after determining that restitution was not warranted based on an appropriate correction offer by the defendant. The injunctive relief was not disturbed.
Defendant appealed the fees award based on the reversal of the CLRA jury verdict, but that did not change the award in favor of plaintiff. Defendant argued that under Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1212 (2015), no attorney’s fees could be collected in a CLRA case where a proper correction offer was made by a defendant. The Sixth District, however, did not believe that Benson applied to the Lemon Law claim and jury verdict under that Act, such that the fee order was justified for that reason. However, the appellate court also determined that it did not have to go that far because plaintiff did obtain CLRA injunctive relief, which justified fees and with Benson expressly declining to address the issue of fee entitlement if injunctive relief was obtained. So, the trial court did not have to reconsider its fees ruling such that it stood after the judgment was modified via the published decision to delete the CLRA restitutionary jury verdict.
Comments