Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America CA3

California Court of Appeal May 29, 2024 No. C097296Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the appellants' motion for attorney fees because there was no statutory or contractual basis for such an award under the American rule.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a postjudgment motion for attorney fees where no statutory or contractual basis for the award existed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Finding no statutory or contractual basis for such an award, we affirm.”

“Under the American rule, a prevailing party is not entitled to recover attorney fees from its opponent unless expressly authorized by a contract or statute.”

“Because appellants have failed to show a valid contractual or statutory basis for an award of attorney fees, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the fee motion.”

Filed 5/29/24 Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

ANTONIO ARRIAGARAZO, Individually and as C097296 Successor in Interest, etc., et al., (Super. Ct. No. 161863) Cross-complainants and Appellants,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al.

Cross-defendants and Respondents.

Appellants Antonio Arriagarazo and Alicia Rodriguez de Arriaga (collectively, appellants) appeal from an order denying their postjudgment motion for attorney fees incurred in connection with their successful appeal and reinstatement of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 stipulated judgment.1 Finding no statutory or contractual basis for such an award, we affirm.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Following the death of their son in a car accident, appellants filed a cross- complaint against cross-defendants (respondents) BMW of North America and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (collectively, BMW) alleging causes of action for strict product liability, negligence, and wrongful death. In April 2019, BMW served appellants with an offer to compromise pursuant to section 998, which appellants accepted. Under the terms of the offer, BMW agreed to pay appellants $15,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims and causes of action against BMW, “with each side to bear their own costs and attorney fees.” The offer did not otherwise specify how the case was to be finally resolved. On May 28, 2019, the trial court entered a proposed stipulated judgment pursuant to the accepted section 998 offer. Thereafter, BMW successfully moved to vacate the judgment on the ground the terms of the settlement contemplated only a general release and dismissal, not an entry of judgment. On November 19, 2019, the trial court issued an order vacating its judgment. In a prior appeal, appellants challenged the trial court’s order vacating the judgment. This court reversed the order and awarded appellants their costs on appeal. (Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 742, 744 (Arriagarazo).) Remittitur was issued on July 27, 2021. On July 28, 2021, the trial court conducted a case management conference, at which the trial court vacated its November 19, 2019 order and reinstated the May 28, 2019 judgment.2

Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief