Hile v. Clippinger Chevrolet
Filed 5/23/06 Hile v. Clippinger Chevrolet CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
GARY HILE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLIPPINGER CHERVROLET, Defendant and Respondent. | B181523 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC042154) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Michael L. Stern and Robert Dukes, Judges. Reversed and remanded in part, otherwise affirmed.
Jeffrey B. McMillen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Oldman, Cooley, Sallus, Gold, Birnberg & Coleman, Ronald Gold, Justin B. Gold; Norman J. Hoffman, Inc. and Norman J. Hoffman for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant appeals from the portion of the judgment denying attorney's fees. The lawsuit for which attorney's fees were denied involved appellant's purchase of an allegedly defective 4500 HD tow truck chassis from respondent, for which he sought restitution of the money paid, including money he had paid for aftermarket painting and additions, as well as revocation and rescission of the contract. The trial court ruled in the judgment that there was a breach of contract and that appellant was entitled to revocation but had no right to attorney's fees. A different judge subsequently denied appellant's separate motion for attorney's fees, explicitly relying on the initial denial of attorney's fees in the judgment. Appellant's â€
