Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-56842 - Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-56842 - Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al
October 20, 2016
PDF | More
FILED OPINION (STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judge: SR Authoring, FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [10166878] [14-56842, 14-56305]
January 6, 2017
PDF | More
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) Travis Z. Gonzales seeks attorney’s fees under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) in connection with these two appeals, which were consolidated for purposes of oral argument and decision. In Case No. 14- 56842, we granted summary judgment to Gonzales on his CLRA and Unfair Competition Law claims. In Case No. 14- 56305, we affirmed the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees to CarMax under Section 1780(e) of the CLRA. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) The California Court of Appeal has also instructed, however, that “[d]eterminations of whether [a plaintiff] is a ‘prevailing plaintiff’ and the amount to be awarded, if any, are to be made, in the first instance, by the trial court in the sound exercise of its discretion.” Kim, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 788. Here, as CarMax argues, although Gonzales was awarded summary judgment on appeal, our opinion did not order a particular remedy—the district court must still enter a final judgment on remand. Consequently, although it is relatively clear that Gonzales “achieved his litigation objectives” on appeal, the district court should, after fashioning a remedy in conformity with our opinion, determine in the first instance whether Gonzales qualifies as a prevailing plaintiff under Section 1780(e) of the CLRA and the reasonableness of Gonzales’ requested attorney’s fees in both case No. 14- 56842 and 14-56305. IT IS SO ORDERED. [10256734] [14-56305, 14-56842]