Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Orange County Judge Short-Changed Attorneys in Fee Award
Justices Say Suit in Lemon-Law Case Was Properly Brought Where Defendant’s California Headquarters Is Located and Plaintiff Was Wrongly Limited to Post-Judgment Recovery Based on Lawyer Rates Where Car Was Purchased, Serviced
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has concluded that where a lemon-law case was tried in Orange County, it was error for the judge, in awarding fees to the plaintiff’s Los Angeles lawyers, to set the amount at the relatively low average hourly rate charged by practitioners in Fresno County, basing the order on the defective vehicle having been purchased and serviced there.
The defendant was sued in Orange County based on its California headquarters being located there.
Justice Thomas A. Delaney authored the opinion, filed June 26 and certified for publication on Tuesday.
Following settlement of a lawsuit brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Orange Superior Court Judge Glenn R. Salter granted plaintiff Ashley Tidrick $15,000 in fees and costs—an 82.9% reduction from the $82,719.33 that was claimed.
Tidrick appealed.
Minute Order
In an Aug. 3, 2023 minute order, Salter said:
“The problem is that the case should have been venued in Fresno County.
“Plaintiff is a resident of Fresno County, and the vehicle was purchased there. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b), the case should have been filed or transferred there. Moreover, all the potential witnesses are there and transfer of the case to Fresno County would have been justified.”
That code section says that, subject to enumerated exceptions, “in an action arising from…provision of goods [or]…services… intended primarily for personal, family or household use…, the superior court in the county where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.”
The judge went on to say:
“At least one unpublished case from the Court of Appeal in Fresno has indicated that Los Angles attorneys who fly in to try a Lemon Law case there can only seek attorney fees based on the local Fresno rates….It is an unpublished case, but this court finds its reasoning persuasive.
“…A request for attorney fees for a Fresno case filed in Orange County shall be adjudged based on Fresno County rates.”
Trial Court Decision
Salter took the matter under submission. In an Aug. 21 minute order, he declared:
“Buyer’s attorneys, Consumer Law Experts, PC, are from Los Angeles County and have filed a motion for fees based on the prevailing hourly rate for Los Angeles/Orange County attorneys. However, the court finds that as a matter of law the court must award attorney fees based on the prevailing hourly rate for consumer attorneys in Fresno County….Under California’s consumer protection laws, there simply is no connection between this buyer and Orange County.”
He based the award on a Jan. 21, 2020 unpublished Fifth District Court of Appeal opinion reciting the average hourly rates of Fresno attorneys as being $350 for partners and $225 for associates.
Tidrick had sought $74,275 in fees for services by the El Segundo firm of Consumer Law Experts, P.C., and $8,444.33 in costs. Salter did not specify what part, if any, of the $15,000 award related to costs.
Delaney’s Opinion
In his opinion reversing the postjudgment order, Delaney said:
“[T]he trial court failed to cite, and we have been unable to locate, any authority making the venue provisions of section 395, subdivision (b) mandatory in Song-Beverly Act cases.
“Because Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b) is not mandatory, generally applicable venue rules apply.”
He pointed to §395.5 which sets forth:
“A corporation may be sued in the county where a contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.”
The defendant is a Michigan-based corporation: FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, or “Chrysler.” Its principal place of business in California is in the Orange County city of Newport Beach.
“Because venue was proper in Orange County,” Delaney said, “the trial court should have applied local hourly attorney rates.”
Supreme Court Precedent
He pointed to the California Supreme Court’s 2000 opinion in PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler where Justice Stanley Mosk (now deceased) proclaimed:
“The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”
Delaney wrote:
“The relevant ‘community’ is generally based on where the services are rendered, i.e., where the court is located….Accordingly, the reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community in Orange County.”
Salter failed to indicate how many hours of time claimed by Consumer Law Experts he was crediting as having been validly expended, Delaney noted, and did not tell how much of the $15,000 award, if any, was attributable to costs. The opinion instructs that, on remand, the Orange Superior Court is to employ the lodestar method (multiplying hours by fee-amount). utilizing “the prevailing hourly rate for consumer attorneys in Orange County,” and “to clarify whether its original order awarded Tidrick her costs, and if it did not, to make an additional award of such costs.”
The case is Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, 2025 S.O.S. 2075.
Representing Tidrick on appeal were Jordan G. Cohen of Consumer Law Experts and Jeff Dominic Price, a West Los Angeles attorney. John A. Taylor Jr. and Melissa B. Whalen of the Burbank appellate law firm of Horvitz & Levy joined with Erin E. Hanson of the San Diego firm of Clark Hill in acting for FCA.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company