Boling v. DTG Operations CA4/3

Filed 3/2/15 Boling v. DTG Operations 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARK BOLING,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G049360

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00540971)

DTG OPERATIONS, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of James E. Mahfood and James E. Mahfood; Dale M. Fiola for Plaintiff and Appellant. Perkins Coie, Michael B. Garfinkle and Joren S. Bass, for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION This appeal is a companion to the appeal in another case we decide today (Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc. (Mar. 2, 2015, G049106) [nonpub. opn.].) Despite having lost a motion for summary judgment and having a judgment entered against him, appellant Mark Boling inexplicably put in for over $300,000 in attorney fees, on the theory that he had actually prevailed against respondent DTG Operations, Inc., the company that operates Dollar Rent A Car (Dollar). The trial court found Boling was not entitled to fees. We affirm. Boling did not make the showing necessary to obtain an attorney fee award under either of the statutes upon which he based his fee motion. The trial court had the discretion to make this determination, and Boling has not shown how this discretion was abused. FACTS A detailed recitation of the facts underlying this appeal can be found in our opinion regarding Boling’s appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted Dollar’s motion for summary judgment. Briefly, Boling sued Dollar under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) after discovering a small discrepancy between the amount quoted on the Dollar website and 1 amount actually charged at the Phoenix airport when he rented a car. The trial court determined that he had not been damaged by the error and granted Dollar’s motion for summary judgment. Boling appealed from the judgment, and we affirmed. (Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., supra, G049106.) Undeterred by the judgment against him, Boling moved to collect attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Civil Code section 1780, subdivision (e). He asked for $337,443.