California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice (https:// cacasesummaries.com). Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available, as well as annual Practice Area subscriptions in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty has been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. He currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. conducting Zoom hearings throughout California (to use Monty contact his case manager Haward Cho, haward@adrservices. com, (619) 233-1323). Monty also helps lawyers improve their skills and practices with his Lawyer Master Mentoring™ services (for info visit Monty’s web at https:// montymcintyre-law.com).
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Attorney Fees
Arbitration
Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.5th _ , 2022 WL 1672918: The California Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal awarding plaintiff attorney fees of $169,602 after a jury found for plaintiff in her action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code, section 1790 et seq.) and awarded her $21,957.25 in damages. Resolving a dispute among the Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that the FTC’s Holder Rule, requiring consumer credit contracts to include language permitting a consumer to assert against third-party creditors all claims and defenses that could be asserted against the seller of a good or service, and stating that “recovery hereunder by the debtor shall not exceed amounts paid by the debtor hereunder” (16 C.F.R. section 433.2(a) (1975)), does not prevent a prevailing consumer from recovering attorney fees to the full extent allowed by state law. The California Supreme Court disapproved of the contrary decisions of Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 398, 418–419, and Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal. App.5th 151, 159–163. (May 26, 2022.)
Leshane v. Tracy VW, Inc. (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1283276: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ petition to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleging violations of the Labor Code solely as representatives of the state under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Labor Code, section 2698 et seq.). The trial court properly denied defendants’ petition to compel arbitration finding plaintiffs’ claim under PAGA was not subject to arbitration under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348. The Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ argument that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 should be construed broadly to allow defendants to still compel arbitration after the plaintiffs, by amending their complaint, no longer maintained any action in any forum based on arbitrable claims. There was no longer any action for defendants to counter by filing a petition under section 1281.2 for specific enforcement of the arbitration provision. (C.A. 3rd., April 29, 2022.) Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 1468016: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The
10
Attorney Journals San Diego | Volume 227, 2022
