Martin v. My Car Agent CA4/3

Filed 4/24/14 Martin v. My Car Agent CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAWN MARTIN,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048985

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00526774)

MY CAR AGENT, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Dismissed. Liberty & Associates, Louis A. Liberty and Ian Otto for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Christopher P. Ruiz and Christopher P. Ruiz for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiff Dawn Martin appeals from an order awarding her a reduced amount of attorney fees. Because the order is nonappealable, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS

Plaintiff sued defendant My Car Agent for violating the Automobile Sales 1 Finance Act (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.) and other causes of action. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, whereby defendant would pay plaintiff $11,000 and release her from any obligations under the sales contract, and plaintiff would dismiss her complaint with prejudice. The parties agreed to bear their own attorney fees, except as provided in section V of the settlement agreement. Section V provided that the parties would meet and try to resolve plaintiff’s claim for attorney fees; however, if they were unable to reach a resolution, then plaintiff would file a motion for attorney fees with the court, but plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party on her Automobile Sales Finance Act claim only. Plaintiff filed a motion with the court for around $262,000 in attorney fees. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion, arguing it violated the settlement agreement and that the amount of fees requested was excessive, unreasonable, and unsupported. In plaintiff’s reply to defendant’s opposition, she argued her motion should be granted in its entirety because she had recovered all that she sought in her lawsuit. On July 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion, but reduced the amount of attorney fees to $32,581.