Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC CA2/1

Filed 11/19/20 Regueiro v. FCA US, LLC CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

FRANCISCO REGUEIRO, et al., B301772

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC620823) v.

FCA US, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dennis J. Landin, Judge. Affirmed. Hawkins Parnell & Young and Ryan K. Marden for Defendant and Appellant. Knight Law Group, Steve Mikhov, Roger Kirnos, Amy Morse; Wirtz Law, Richard M. Wirtz; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Cynthia E. Tobisman and Marc J. Poster for Plaintiffs and Respondents. _______________________

Defendant FCA US, LLC (FCA) appeals the trial court’s award of attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiffs in their action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act), pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d). FCA contends the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees incurred by the plaintiffs after FCA made its initial settlement offer, because this initial offer was greater than the amount ultimately recovered by the plaintiffs at trial. We have jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). We affirm. BACKGROUND On or around September 17, 2011, plaintiffs Francisco and Elizabeth Regueiro purchased a new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee manufactured by FCA from Cerritos Dodge, Inc., a local automotive dealer. Subsequent to this purchase, the Regueiros experienced problems with the vehicle that they attributed to defects in the power module with which the vehicle was equipped. On May 18, 2016, the Regueiros filed this action against FCA. The complaint alleged theories of (a) breach of express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, (b) breach of implied warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and (c) fraudulent inducement/concealment. The case was tried, and on April 5, 2019, the jury returned a verdict of $25,586.90 in favor of the Regueiros based on the implied warranty claim. The jury returned defense verdicts on the express warranty and fraud claims. During the pendency of the litigation, FCA served three successive offers to compromise under section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 998). The first, dated June 13, 2016, offered the Regueiros $50,000 in exchange for dismissal of the