Vilorio v. Hayward Toyota

Filed 6/9/06 Vilorio v. Hayward Toyota CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Jose Vilorio sued a car dealer for violations of consumer protection laws. He obtained relief on only one cause of action, recovering minimal damages. Both Vilorio and the dealer sought costs and attorney fees. The trial court denied both parties' requests, ruling there was no prevailing party. Vilorio appeals. We affirm on the ground that, even assuming Vilorio was the prevailing party in the action, the court had the discretion to deny him costs and fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033 because he recovered a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case.

Factual & Procedural Background

Vilorio bought a new car from Hayward Toyota in February 2001. He alleged that the dealer misrepresented the terms of the sales contract, failed to provide a Spanish language version of the sales contract before asking Vilorio to sign an English language version, and sold Vilorio overpriced service and maintenance contracts after misrepresenting their cost and scope of coverage. Vilorio sued Hayward Toyota, asserting claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.; hereafter, CLRA), the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civ. Code, § 2981 et seq.), the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.), the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), and the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; hereafter UCL). He sought $40,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and an award of attorney fees and costs.

At the time of trial, the only remaining claims were the CLRA and UCL claims. The CLRA claim was tried to a jury; the UCL claim was simultaneously tried to the court. The jury found that Hayward Toyota violated the CLRA and awarded Vilorio $4,519.69 in damages. Vilorio dismissed his punitive damages claim. The trial court found for Hayward Toyota on the UCL claim. The court explained that it disagreed with the jury's view of the evidence and did not believe the dealer's salespeople misrepresented the terms of the sales, service or maintenance contracts or failed to provide Vilorio with a Spanish language version of the contract. The judgment for Vilorio on the CLRA claim and for Hayward Toyota on the UCL claim included entitlement to fees and costs in a unspecified amount for each party.

Both Vilorio and Hayward Toyota filed cost bills and motions for attorney fees as the prevailing party. After extended briefing and hearings, the court concluded there was no prevailing party. The written order provides: â€