Appeals court reverses fee cut in lemon law case, citing venue, rate errors

In a decision clarifying how California courts must apply attorney fee standards in lemon law cases, a state appellate panel has reversed an Orange County judge's dramatic reduction of a plaintiff's legal fees--slashing an $82,000 request down to $15,000--finding the court relied on the wrong venue rules and improperly substituted out-of-county billing rates without adequate justification.

The three-judge panel ruled Orange County Superior Court Judge Glenn R. Salter erred by using Fresno County billing rates rather than those prevailing in Orange County and by misapplying the lodestar method. Tidrick v. FCA US LLC., G063186 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Div. 3, June 26, 2025), was certified for publication on July 22 - acting on four requests by consumer attorney law firms.

The decision could have significant implications for venue selection in Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act cases, an area where some courts have already voiced frustration over growing case volumes and their impact on court dockets.

One in 12 new case filings in Los Angeles County Superior Court is a lemon law case. The number of lemon law cases filed in L.A. jumped from 6,220 in fiscal 2022-2023 to 8,182 in fiscal 2023-2024. This increase was responsible for 28% of the increase in civil filings over the past year, according to court officials.

Associate Justice Thomas A. Delaney, who wrote the 3rd District opinion, was joined in the decision by Justices Maurice Sanchez and Martha K. Gooding. They told the trial court to apply the lodestar method using Orange County rates, and to clarify or award costs not previously addressed. Tidrick is also entitled to recover appellate costs.

"Because venue was proper in Orange County, the trial court should have applied local hourly attorney rates [for the fee award]," the court wrote. "The relevant 'community' is generally based on where the services are rendered, i.e., where the court is located. Accordingly, the reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community in Orange County."

Plaintiff Ashley Tidrick sued FCA US LLC after repeated transmission problems with her vehicle, which she brought to service facilities six times in 10 months. When FCA declined to repurchase the vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act, Tidrick filed suit in Orange County, where FCA maintains its principal place of business. Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, 30-2021-01188037-CU-BC-CJC, (O.C. Super., Ct., filed Mar. 08, 2021)

The case was ultimately settled. FCA agreed to repurchase the vehicle, pay full restitution, a 1.58-times civil penalty, and attorney fees and costs. Tidrick sought $82,719.33--comprising $74,275 in attorney fees for 173 hours billed at $415-$500 per hour, and $8,444.33 in costs.

Salter awarded only $15,000 total, applying reduced Fresno County rates--$350 for partners, $225 for associates, and $110 for paralegals--based on Tidrick's residence and vehicle purchase location. He cited Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(b) and an unpublished opinion from the 3rd District.

The appellate court found multiple legal errors in that approach.

It held that Section 395(b) does not govern Song-Beverly Act venue. Instead, Section 395.5 controls, allowing suit in either the buyer's location or the defendant's place of business. Because FCA did not contest Orange County venue, it forfeited any objection.

The court reaffirmed that trial courts must calculate fees under the lodestar method by multiplying reasonable hours by prevailing local rates and must clearly justify any deviation. The trial court failed to do so, issuing a lump sum without identifying how many hours were deemed reasonable or which rates applied.

"When a trial court applies a substantial negative multiplier to a presumptively accurate lodestar attorney fee amount, the court must clearly explain its case-specific reasons for the percentage reduction," the opinion stated.

The panel also faulted the trial court for failing to distinguish how much of the $15,000 was for costs versus fees. Because FCA did not object to Tidrick's cost request within the statutory 15-day period, it waived any challenge.

Malibu attorney Jeff Dominic Price and Jordan G. Cohen of Consumer Law Experts represented Tidrick. FCA was represented by John A. Taylor Jr. and Melissa B. Whalen of Horvitz & Levy, along with Erin E. Hanson of Clark Hill.