Gamo v. Merrell

Cite as Gamo v. Merrell (2025) 113 Cal. App. 5th 656
Filed August 14, 2025
Fourth District, Div. Three

By: Nicholas W. Yang
Hanson Bridgett LLP
https://www.hansonbridgett.com

Headnote:  Cost-of-Proof Fees

Summary:  The unilateral fee shifting provision in the financial elder abuse statute (Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657.5(a)) does not bar prevailing defendants from obtaining cost-of-proof fees incurred in proving true facts that plaintiff refused to admit in discovery without any reasonable basis under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.420.

Plaintiff Tirso Gamo (“Gamo”) purchased a car from defendants J Star Auto Group, Inc. and Jared Merrell (collectively, the “Sellers”). Thereafter, Gamo sued the Sellers for financial elder abuse, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and other related claims. The Sellers prevailed on all claims at trial. After trial, the Sellers filed a motion for attorney’s fees under CCP section 2033.420 (cost-of-proof fees) and Civil Code section 1780(e) (CLRA fees). The trial court denied the motion and held the Sellers’ fee request was barred as a matter of law by Welf. & Inst. Code section 15657.5(a), which awards fees to prevailing plaintiffs on financial elder abuse claims but not to prevailing defendants. The Sellers appealed.

The appellate court reversed in part as to cost-of-proof fees and remanded for further consideration. The unilateral fee provision in section 15657.5(a), bars defendants from obtaining attorney’s fees for prevailing on financial elder abuse claims and all intertwined claims. CCP section 2033.420 authorizes cost-of-proof sanctions against a party that unreasonably fails to admit undisputed facts. The court held that cost-of-proof fees do not conflict with the unilateral fee provision in section 15657.5(a) because both statutes can operate together as they each apply in distinct scenarios, and cost-of-proof fees do not impede the public policy considerations behind unilateral fee provisions. The court reasoned that cost-of-proof fees, which encourage efficient litigation, neither reward the prevailing party nor punish a losing party in a lawsuit, and therefore do not interfere with the unilateral fee provision in section 15657.5(a). As to the Sellers’ request for CLRA fees, the court affirmed on the grounds that the Sellers failed to provide a separate, adequate argument for their entitlement to those fees.

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/g063493.html