Fear Not Law Articles: Graham v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

Graham v

Graham v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

Filed 2/5/07 Graham v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ROBERT GRAHAM et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

B189259

x-ref. B152928

(Super. Ct. No. BC 215624)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed in part with directions and affirmed in part.

________

Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie, Andrew J. Ogilvie, Mark F. Anderson and Bryan Kemnitzer; Law Offices of Richard M. Pearl and Richard M. Pearl for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., and Gregory D. Brown; Bryan Cave, Sheldon Eisenberg and John W. Rogers; DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Robert E. Norton II and Janet H. Delecke for Defendants and Appellants DaimlerChrysler Corporation and DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation.

_________

We review this case for the second time. Robert Graham, Truman Trekell, and Daniel Hawkins (plaintiffs), on behalf of a nationwide class, sued DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Chrysler) for breach of warranty on trucks which Chrysler represented could tow 6,400 pounds but which actually could tow only 2,000 pounds. Shortly after the suit was filed, Chrysler offered plaintiffs and all other similarly situated buyers various remedies, including repurchase or replacement of the trucks without any reduction for usage. Because plaintiffs had obtained full remedies, the trial court dismissed the case as moot, but, under the â€

Description	Plaintiffs appealed and Chrysler cross-appealed. Chrysler contends that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs (I) made a reasonable attempt to settle the dispute before litigation, (II) filed a lawsuit with merit, and (III) were entitled to a 2.0 multiplier for fees on fees for the work done in the original trial court proceeding. Plaintiffs contend (IV) that the court erred in not awarding them attorney fees for their appeals. Court reject contentions (I) and (II), agreeing with plaintiffs and the trial court that plaintiffs successfully proved the two new elements of the catalyst theory entitling them to attorney fees. Regarding contention (III), court conclude that the court abused its discretion in selecting the multiplier on the fees for fees by relying in part on plaintiffs' appellate work and results. Regarding contention (IV), court conclude the trial court erred in finding that it did not have authority to determine attorney fees on appeal. Court reverse those portions of the order setting the 2.0 multiplier and denying plaintiffs appellate attorney fees and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects court affirm the judgment.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.