Leinberger v. Keystone RV Co. CA4/3

Filed 10/2/15 Leinberger v. Keystone RV Co. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CRIS LEINBERGER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G049341

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00478701)

KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kirk H. Nakamura, Judge. Affirmed. Anderson Law Firm, Martin W. Anderson and Jeffrey Kane; Law Office of Quyen Tu and Quyen Tu for Plaintiff and Appellant. Walker, Wright, Tyler & Ward, J. Randolph Huston and Michelle E. Reed for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Cris Leinberger appeals from a postjudgment award of attorney fees after his lemon-law case settled and judgment was entered in his favor against respondent Keystone RV Company, Inc. Leinberger’s issue on appeal is that the court did not give his attorney a large enough fee award. We affirm the order. The trial court has wide discretion in setting the amount of fees, particularly in routine litigation such as a lemon-law case. As Leinberger’s counsel himself acknowledged, the trial court has extensive experience with these types of cases; it is therefore in a very good position – certainly better than we are – to determine whether the case has been efficiently litigated and a reasonable amount of time spent on it. We cannot find any abuse of the trial court’s discretion here. FACTS Leinberger commenced this litigation in federal court in September 2009. He filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court under the provisions of the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., known as the “lemon law” (Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 478, 485), in May 2011. For a while these two actions overlapped, until Leinberger dismissed the federal action. In the state court complaint, Leinberger alleged he had purchased a travel trailer manufactured by Keystone in May 2007, paying $65,000 for it. He claimed the plumbing leaked, the storage compartments flooded, and the tires blew out, all while the trailer was under warranty. The manufacturer neither fixed the defects nor repurchased the trailer. Leinberger sought damages, as well as penalties and attorney fees under Civil Code section 1794. Keystone filed two demurrers (one based on another action pending) and a motion for summary judgment. Eventually, the case was set for a jury trial in late April 2013; it trailed for two days, then transformed into a court trial, and was postponed for two weeks. At the end of that time, Leinberger accepted Keystone’s offer to settle. Judgment was entered in