Kim v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
This matter, which is before us for the second time on appeal from an order denying attorney fees, arises out of an action brought by plaintiff and appellant Richard Sang Kim against defendant and respondent Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery (TAG) for, among other things, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In a prior published opinion, we reversed the trial courts order denying Kims motion for attorney fees for the reason that the trial court erroneously found that, because the matter was resolved by settlement agreement prior to trial, there could be no prevailing party. (Kim v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 170 (Kim I).)
On remand, the trial court found Kim obtained a net monetary recovery but nevertheless denied him attorney fees under the CLRA because on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorneys fees. In this opinion, Court take liberally from our prior opinion the discussion of the facts and the relevant law. Court conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Kim obtained a net monetary recovery but was not a prevailing plaintiff under the CLRA, and direct the court to award Kim reasonable attorney fees to be determined by the trial court.
Comments on Kim v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.