DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise CA6

Filed 3/16/22 DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY DENIKE, H046718 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CV273438)

v.

MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mathew Enterprise, Inc., doing business as Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge (SCJ), appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to Timothy DeNike after a jury found in DeNike’s favor on causes of action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.),1 violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) (§ 1790 et seq.), and for intentional misrepresentation.2 Before awarding attorney fees, the trial court issued a permanent injunction against SCJ based on its independent findings that SCJ violated the CLRA. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order awarding attorney fees and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Civil Code. 2 SCJ separately appealed from the judgment and we issue our published opinion in that case concurrently. (DeNike v. Mathew Enterprise, Inc. (Mar. 16, 2022, H046420) __ Cal.App.5th __ (DeNike).)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We refer to the facts and procedural background set forth in detail in this court’s published opinion, filed concurrently. (DeNike, supra, __ Cal.App.5th __.)3 We discuss here only those facts and background relevant to the specific issues in this appeal. In 2014, DeNike purchased a new Jeep Wrangler, with a hardtop, from SCJ. DeNike believed, and SCJ led him to believe, that the hardtop had been installed at the factory. When DeNike subsequently learned that the vehicle was in fact manufactured with a soft top and the hardtop had been installed afterwards, he sought to return it. DeNike filed a complaint against SCJ alleging violations of the CLRA, fraud by intentional misrepresentation and/or concealment, and violations of the Song-Beverly Act. DeNike also sent SCJ a CLRA demand letter. In response, SCJ offered to rescind the contract, take back the vehicle, pay off the financing, refund any payments made by DeNike, and pay his incidental and consequential damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. Unable to reach an agreement, principally on the issue of attorney fees, the matter went to trial. The trial court ruled that DeNike’s claims for damages under the CLRA were barred because SCJ’s correction offer was appropriate, but allowed the jury to decide DeNike’s cause of action for restitution under the CLRA. The jury found that SCJ: (1) violated the CLRA; (2) made an intentional misrepresentation to DeNike; (3) did not commit fraud by concealment; and