Beyond That, The Motion Was Not Filed On 16-Court Days’ Required Notice.
This case shows how a litigant and his attorney’s prior actions can have a dramatic impact on a later attempt to obtain more attorney’s fees through a noticed fee motion.
In Baiocchi v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. G059143 (4th Dist., Div. 3 August 11, 2022) (unpublished) plaintiff accepted Ford’s CCP § 998 pretrial settlement offer for $27,000 for a car buyback, plus $10,000 in attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs (even though plaintiff had the option of moving for a different fee award by a motion addressed to the court, an option he did not elect although claiming otherwise later on). Plaintiff accepted, negotiating a check which had the $10,000 capped fees in the amount of the check. Then, after continued status conferences where plaintiff’s attorney sent a special appearance attorney despite the court wanting retained counsel to be present, and despite indications from the lower court and Ford that it wanted to see a noticed fee motion soon, plaintiff filed a Song-Beverly Act statutory motion for attorney’s fees of $179,481 (inclusive of a 1.5 multiplier) on less than the 16-court days’ required notice. The lower court denied the motion based on lack of proper notice and on the ground that plaintiff had accepted the $10,000 fee feature of the statutory offer.
The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Justice Goethals, affirmed. The two bases relied on by the lower court resonated with the appellate court—especially given that plaintiff accepted the $10,000 attorney fee offer by negotiating the check.
Comments