Horvath v. HC Automotive CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Oct 7, 2020 No. B295116Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order awarding attorney fees and costs, holding that the settlement agreement established the plaintiff as the prevailing party entitled to fees and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its apportionment or calculation of the award.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding RHC liable as a successor in interest to HCA for attorney fees.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the apportionment of attorney fees among defendants.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the reasonableness and amount of the attorney fee award.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The plain language of the settlement agreement deems plaintiff to be the prevailing party as to RHC and HCA. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover statutory and contractual attorney fees against both those entities.”

“A trial court has broad discretion not only in setting the amount of an award of attorney fees, but also in allocating the award among various defendants.”

Filed 10/7/20 Horvath v. HC Automotive CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

LASZLO HORVATH, B295116

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC620911) v.

HC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Linfield, Judge. Affirmed.

McCreary, PC and Duncan J. McCreary for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Office of David Valdez Jr. and David Valdez Jr.; Law Office of Steven A. Simons and Steven A. Simons for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants and appellants RHC Automotive, Inc. (RHC), HC Automotive, Inc. (HCA), and Capital One N.A. (Capital One) (collectively, defendants) appeal from a postjudgment order awarding plaintiff and respondent Laszlo Horvath (plaintiff) attorney fees and costs against them. We affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action against defendants and others in May 2016, alleging that defendants failed to disclose that a vehicle they sold to plaintiff was previously stolen and damaged, causing the right-front suspension to fail while plaintiff was driving on the freeway. The operative first amended complaint asserted causes of action for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), unfair competition, fraud, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act), and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711. Plaintiff settled with defendants, and the parties agreed that attorney fees and costs would be determined by a subsequent motion. The parties’ settlement agreement states in pertinent part: “Plaintiff[] may submit a fee application to the Court . . . for an award against [HCA] and/or [RHC] of reasonable attorney fees and actually incurred costs in prosecuting the Action (the ‘Fee Application’). . . . Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party as to [HCA] and [RHC] (except as otherwise awarded by the Court, each of the Parties shall bear their own attorney fees and legal costs incurred in connection with the Action). RHC expressly reserves the right to request a ruling by the Court as to whether RHC is the successor corporation of HC[A] and liable to

Horvath v. HC Automotive CA2/2

AI Brief

LASZLO HORVATH, B295116

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief