LOS ANGELES - A Los Angeles County judge recently slashed attorney fees in a lemon law case against Hyundai Motor America, denying the plaintiff’s legal counsel tens of thousands of dollars and taking a stance against a dubious trend that has been taking place in similar cases.
Plaintiff Mary Morris won her case against the automotive company after the parties settled, with an award of $85,000, which consisted of a “full statutory buy-back” of her car, incidental and consequential damages, and a civil penalty. The settlement, presided over by Superior Court Judge Howard L. Halm, also provided for “reasonable attorney fees and expenses,” according to court documents.
Morris, represented by the prolific filer of lemon law cases Knight Law Group, had argued that Hyundai’s "obstreperous and aggressive positions in the litigation" required extensive efforts by her attorneys, including adding the law firm Altman Law Group as co-counsel in May 2016 to assist in the litigation.
After failing to reach agreement with Hyundai on the attorney fees amount, Morris, through Knight Law, moved for a fee award using the lodestar method, which came to a grand total of $191,688.75.
Halm denied the request and instead awarded $73,864 in fees.
On appeal, Morris argued that the court “abused its discretion in reducing her attorney fee award.”
But on Sept. 16, the trial court’s ruling was upheld by the Los Angeles Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District.
Recovery of attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Act (lemon law) states that a prevailing buyer “shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action … [It] requires the trial court to ‘base’ the prevailing buyer’s attorney fee award upon actual time expended on the case, as long as such fees are reasonably incurred—both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged.”
Based on a number of circumstances listed in the final ruling, in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act, the appeal’s court determined that the plaintiff’s team was not eligible to receive their requested amount of fees and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
In the last six years, more than 30,000 complaints have been filed against the auto industry in the state of California, and each year since 2015 the annual number has grown. More than 8,000 were filed in 2018, and the pace of this year’s filings will likely surpass last year's.
Within the thousands of cases closed and thousands more pending in California courts, plaintiff attorneys have discovered a way to ensure larger payouts – not for the consumer but for themselves.
Across the state more than 550 different law firms have filed these particular suits with Morris’s attorneys, the Knight Law Group, leading the way as having filed the most Song-Beverly Act suits in California than any other firm - more than 4,000.
The auto manufacturer that has faced the most lemon lawsuits is Ford Motor Co. – and by a wide margin. Since 2015, it has been hit with at least 8,791. General Motors faces the second greatest number of suits with at least 5,612.