Action Against Landlord Under The Unfair Competition Statute Cannot Support Attorney Fee Award

Posted on July 22, 2010 by David J. McMahon

In City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel, 2010 DJDAR 11005 (2010), the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal ruled that in an action brought pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 (the “UCL”), the trial court improperly granted a fee award. The appellate court reversed the award of attorney fees by the lower court, holding that the UCL does not in and of itself authorize the award of attorney fees.

The City of Santa Monica (“City”) filed a lawsuit against a landlord, who owned and leased units in the City. The complaint alleged that the landlord sexually harassed a tenant, improperly entered tenants’ units without notice and rented an uninhabitable space to a tenant as living quarters. The plaintiff asserted one cause of action under § 17200. Each of the alleged violations was premised on acts not in compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”). The trial court ruled against the landlord, imposed a $7,500 civil penalty, enjoined him from contact with tenants, and ordered him to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. On appeal, the landlord argued that the UCL did not support an attorney fee award.

The court of appeal agreed with the landlord and reversed the fee award. 

The court reiterated the American rule, that in the absence of an express agreement or statute, each party involved in litigation must pay its own attorney fees. The court also noted that the UCL does not, by itself, authorize a court to award attorney fees. 

Plaintiff argued that attorney fees are recoverable when a borrowed statute, upon which a UCL claim is based, allows such recovery. Because the action was based on the municipal code, which provides that persons who violate the code are liable for attorney fees, the plaintiff argued that the fee award was proper. The court disagreed, noting that although the UCL borrows violations from other laws by making them actionable, there is no authority supporting the conclusion that the UCL borrows remedies from other statutes. 

The action was solely brought under the UCL, thus the fee award could not stand.

Please visit Barger & Wolen's Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law Blog for more UCL case updates.

Award of Attorney Fees Under the Automobile Sale Finance Act Upheld by Court of Appeal

Posted on July 20, 2010 by David J. McMahon

by David J. McMahon and Tino X. Do

In Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co., D054369 (July 15, 2010), the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial court’s judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff class representative under the Automobile Sale Finance Act (“ASFA”), and denied costs to defendant in its claim under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998.

Nelson involved a class action against the Pearson Ford car dealership for alleged violations of the ASFA, Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) arising from a backdated car sale contract that resulted in a car buyer paying interest for a time period when no contract existed, and for erroneously adding insurance premium to the sales price of the car which resulted in additional sales tax and financing charges. 

Two separate classes were certified by the trial court: the backdating class and the insurance class. 

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Pearson Ford liable under the ASFA to only the insurance class, liable to both classes under the UCL, and not liable to either class under the CLRA. The trial court granted certain remedies under the ASFA and the UCL, and awarded Nelson his attorney fees and costs under the ASFA. Both parties appealed. 

The appellate court reversed the trial court as to the portion of the judgment finding Pearson Ford not liable to the backdating class under the ASFA and the CLRA. The court also found that the trial court erred in the remedies it awarded under the ASFA and the UCL. The court upheld the trial court’s ruling on the award of attorney fees and costs.

Attorney fees in this matter were not awarded under the UCL, which does not permit this type of remedy, but under the AFSA, a statute that specifically grants the recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party. 

The appellate court noted that Pearson Ford did not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that Nelson was the prevailing party for both classes under the ASFA (Civ. Code section 2983.4), or dispute the awarded amount. Instead, Pearson Ford argued that the trial court should have taken into consideration the fact that it had made a Section 998 offer of $500,000 before trial, and that Nelson failed to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial. 

The appellate court, while noting that a valid settlement offer can be made under Section 998 in a certified class action, agreed with the trial court that the Section 998 offer at issue was invalid because it was a lump-sum offer to two classes. The court stated that it would be impossible to determine whether either class received a less favorable result at trial than it would have received under the offer.