{"id":2333,"date":"2020-04-26T13:18:34","date_gmt":"2020-04-26T20:18:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wirtzlawstg.wpengine.com\/?p=1575"},"modified":"2022-10-25T19:03:57","modified_gmt":"2022-10-25T23:03:57","slug":"los-tribunales-no-deben-tener-en-cuenta-los-importes-de-contingencia-para-decidir-lo-que-el-fabricante-debe-pagar-por-los-honorarios-reales-de-los-abogados-en-la-ley-del-limon-de-california-de-cambio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/courts-must-not-consider-contingency-amounts-in-deciding-what-mfg-must-pay-for-actual-attorneys-fees-in-california-lemon-law-fee-shifting\/","title":{"rendered":"Los tribunales no deben tener en cuenta los importes de contingencia a la hora de decidir lo que el fabricante debe pagar por los honorarios del abogado en los casos de transferencia de honorarios de la Ley del Lim\u00f3n de California"},"content":{"rendered":"

The appellate court in Reynolds v. Ford Motor Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 1921742<\/em>, made it absolutely clear:\u00a0 Courts cannot consider the contingency fee when making statutory fee awards under the California Lemon Law fee shifting provisions.\u00a0 Trial court judges have no discretion to reduce or deny statutory fee awards based on a contingency fee agreement.<\/p>\n

In California Lemon Law cases, prevailing plaintiffs, but not defendants, are entitled to recover their costs and expenses, including their attorney\u2019s fees based on actual time expended and determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred. But what happens when the the defendant alleges that plaintiff\u2019s retainer agreement with her or his attorneys also provides that the attorneys get a portion of the recovery?<\/p>\n

Lemon law defendants have repeatedly attempted to create an ambiguity by arguing the court should deduct the amount of any contingency fee plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys may be receiving from the statutory fees to be awarded under the one-way fee shifting provisions of the California Lemon Law.\u00a0 \u00a0It is not surprising that defendants have taken such a position because deducting the contingency fee from the statutory fees award means that (1) plaintiff\u2019s lawyers get less money (thereby reducing the incentive for qualified attorneys to take up plaintiffs\u2019 lemon law cases and placing a chilling effect on the consumer protection statutory scheme created by the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (2) guilty manufacturers would have to pay less money.<\/p>\n

The problem with the defendant automakers argument is that California Lemon Law was created to protect California consumers<\/em>, not huge car manufacturers.\u00a0 All of the California Lemon Law provisions, including the mandatory award of fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs, are intended to incentivize attorneys to take on these cases — no matter how little the value of the vehicle or truck — and to incentivize manufacturers to comply with their affirmative duty to promptly offer replacement or repurchase of defective vehicles.\u00a0 Any interpretation of the California Lemon Law that undermines those incentives harms California consumers and is invalid.<\/p>\n

In a recently published decision, the California Court of Appeal has now held unequivocally that the terms of a plaintiff\u2019s retainer agreement with his or her attorneys has zero<\/u> relevance to the amount of fees the court should award pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act\u2019s fee shifting provision, \u00a71794(d).\u00a0 Shooting down arguments from Ford that recovery of both a contingency fee and a statutory fee would amount to a double recovery, a windfall, and an unreasonable award, the Court held that the trial court\u2019s sole task in deciding a motion for attorney\u2019s fees is to determine whether the actual fees billed for the tasks performed was reasonable, and billed at a reasonable rate.\u00a0 <\/span>Whe<\/strong>ther the plaintiff\u2019s attorney received fees from elsewhere, such as from a contingency fee provision in the retainer agreement, is legally irrelevant<\/span><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In 2006, Reynolds purchased a 2005 Ford F-250 truck with a 6.0-liter diesel engine.\u00a0 After 15 unsuccessful repair attempts, Reynolds contacted Ford directly and requested a buyback under the California Lemon Law.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, Ford denied the request. Reynolds hired counsel and sued Ford.\u00a0 After extensive litigation, the parties settled Reynolds\u2019s claims for $277,500 plus<\/em> attorney\u2019s fees and costs, to be resolved by agreement or, if the parties could not agree, by motion.<\/p>\n

Reynolds then filed his motion for attorney\u2019s fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to Cal. Civil Code \u00a71794(d).\u00a0 Ford opposed, arguing that Reynolds\u2019s attorneys were not entitled to recover both a suspected contingency fee (of which Ford had no actual proof) and statutory fees. In an auspicious effort to make its argument, Ford demanded production of Reynolds\u2019s confidential attorney client privileged retainer agreement or,at least, disclosure of its terms.<\/p>\n

The trial court rejected Ford\u2019s argument and found that Reynolds\u2019s counsel\u2019s fees were reasonable in both the amount of time expended and the hourly rates charged. The trial court also awarded a lodestar multiplier of 1.2.\u00a0 The trial court reasoned that the California Lemon Law did not require, or allow, the court to consider whether the total amount was \u201creasonable\u201d in light of any other factors, including the speculative existence of a contingency fee. \u201cThe court\u2019s review of the overall reasonableness of the attorney fees is, thus, restricted by the specific language in the fee award provision of the Song-Beverly Act. The court does not have the discretion to consider whether plaintiff\u2019s attorney received additional compensation by … way of a separate retaine[r] agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed.\u00a0 The appellate court agreed that the trial court had no discretion<\/em> to deny or reduce an award simply because plaintiff\u2019s attorneys were also receiving a contingency fee, theoretical or actual.\u00a0 The appellate court explained that the trial court\u2019s sole task<\/em> in deciding a motion for attorney\u2019s fees is to determine whether the actual fees billed for the tasks performed was reasonable, and billed at a reasonable rate.\u00a0 The appellate court held that the terms of the retainer agreement were \u201clegally irrelevant.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the award of a 1.2 multiplier.\u00a0 The appellate court observed with approval that the trial court\u2019s grant of a multiplier was based on the complexity of the factual issues, counsel\u2019s extensive experience in this type of litigation, and \u201c[i]n litigating these types of cases with a large corporate defendant such as Ford Motor Company, many attorneys may decline to represent plaintiffs due to the financial resources of defendant and the prospect of long and hard fought litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The appellate court expressly distinguished Holguin v. Dish Network LLC<\/em> (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, which had previously held that a trial court deciding a fee motion under section California Civil Code \u00a71717 may consider a contingency fee agreement in calculating a lodestar sum.\u00a0 The key difference between Holguin <\/em>and the present case was the source of the fee award.\u00a0 Civil Code \u00a71717 allows a trial court to calculate a lodestar figure and then make additional adjustments (up or down) to reach a \u201creasonable\u201d figure.\u00a0 Section 1794(d) does not allow such an adjustment and as such in a California Lemon Law action the existence and terms of a contingency fee agreement has no<\/u> relevance to the lodestar calculation, including<\/em> the decision whether to award a multiplier.<\/p>\n

Finally, the appellate court noted that by leaving the retainer agreement out of the analysis entirely, the trial courts, and appellate courts, will avoid becoming enmeshed in a \u201cwholly ancillary litigation\u201d which would increase the costs of fee awards.\u00a0 In short, this decision should shut down any future attempts by a manufacturers or distributor to argue, demand production of, or even refer to the existence or terms of plaintiffs\u2019 engagement agreements in the context of motions for attorney\u2019s fees under California Lemon Law.<\/p>\n

So what’s the bottom line? The trial court\u2019s sole job in deciding a motion for attorney\u2019s fees under the California Lemon Law is to determine whether the actual time billed for the tasks preformed was reasonable in amount and to billed at a reasonable hourly rate.\u00a0 The court has no discretion to make any further cuts based on outside circumstances, including the theoretical existence of a contingency fee agreement with the buyer.<\/p>\n

For more information call the experienced trial attorneys at (858) 259-5009 for a free case evaluation.<\/em><\/p>\n

Disclaimer.<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 The information provided in this post is for informational and educational purposes only regarding aspects of the California Lemon Law.\u00a0 It is intended for California Consumers only.\u00a0 This post is considered an advertisement by attorney Richard M. Wirtz and Wirtz Law APC. You should not rely on any of the information provided in this advertisement and no legal advice is given by the advertisement. No attorney client relationship is established by viewing this advertisement. A written signed engagement agreement between you and Wirtz Law APC is required to create an attorney client relationship. You should immediately consult an attorney who is experienced in California Lemon Law. Attorney Richard M. Wirtz is responsible for the content of this post.\u00a0 Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

El tribunal de apelaci\u00f3n en Reynolds v. Ford Motor Company, - Cal.Rptr.3d --, 2020 WL 1921742, lo dej\u00f3 absolutamente claro: Los tribunales no pueden considerar los honorarios de contingencia al hacer las concesiones de honorarios legales en virtud de las disposiciones de cambio de honorarios de la Ley del Lim\u00f3n de California. Los jueces de primera instancia no tienen discreci\u00f3n para reducir o denegar las adjudicaciones de honorarios legales sobre la base de una contingencia....<\/p>","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-california-lemon-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2333"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2333\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4285,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2333\/revisions\/4285"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}