Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc., et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Favorable

(Consumer Protection Defense – litigated by James S. Sifers in the trial court, and by Jenos Firouznam-Heidari and Fariema Nazemi in the Court of Appeal) Our client, an auto dealer, was sued by a cu ... stomer for failing to disclose vehicle damage at the time of purchase. In response to a pre-litigation demand, we sent an offer to remedy under the provisions of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). The customer’s attorney refused to settle the matter unless he was paid a substantial sum in attorney fees. The case was hotly litigated and ultimately settled for less than that which was originally offered pre-litigation. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to bring a motion for attorney fees and costs, and one was filed seeking nearly $200,000 against our client. The trial court refused to award any attorney fees, agreeing with our position that the pre-litigation offer complied with the CLRA and thus barred any further relief. The customer appealed the trial court’s decision. In a published case of first impression, the Court of Appeal found that the pre-litigation offer met the statutory requirements of the CLRA and affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees. This appellate opinion has helped shape the manner in which consumer lawsuits are litigated; it has served as one of the most significant resources to litigants and courts when evaluating the appropriateness of a CLRA offer; and it has helped hinder predatory lawsuits by consumer attorneys.