Flores v. Southcoast Auto. Liquidators, Inc.
17 Cal. App. 5th 841
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Flores saw an online ad for a 2009 Dodge Charger at $9,995 and traveled to the dealer after phone representations about mileage and condition. The car at the lot had higher mileage and damage; paperwork listed a much higher price and contained a gap-insurance add-on.
- Flores returned the car for repairs; Dealer did not perform promised repairs; Flores sent a CLRA demand letter seeking corrective relief and an injunction.
- Dealer offered prelitigation rescission and refund plus $1,500 for incidental costs (arguing the printed ad had a noon expiration and on‑line ads were time-limited); Flores rejected the offer and sued under the CLRA, UCL, fraud, Song‑Beverly, and Magnuson‑Moss.
- At bench trial the court initially found Dealer’s CLRA correction offer barred CLRA damages but later (after reconsideration) found Flores prevailed on UCL and fraud claims, awarded damages, rescission, a permanent injunction requiring clear expiration disclosure in ads, and partial attorney fees under CCP §1021.5.
- Dealer and lender appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding CLRA correction offers do not bar separate fraud or UCL claims because CLRA remedies are cumulative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable pre‑suit CLRA correction offer bars pursuing fraud or UCL claims based on the same conduct | Flores: CLRA remedies are cumulative; a correction offer only bars CLRA damages, not separate statutory or common‑law claims | Dealer/Lender: CLRA is the exclusive remedy for conduct covered by §1770; a reasonable correction offer eliminates related claims | Held: CLRA remedies are not exclusive; a proper correction offer bars CLRA damages but does not preclude independent fraud or UCL claims |
| Whether the UCL injunction was appropriate to stop Dealer’s advertising practices | Flores: injunctive relief is proper to prevent continued deceptive advertising and protect the public | Dealer/Lender: injunction unnecessary where legal remedies suffice and offer of corrective relief addressed damages | Held: injunction under UCL was appropriate; ad practice conferred public benefit and warranted an injunction |
| Whether Dealer’s conduct constituted fraud actionable at law | Flores: misrepresentations (phone and at sale), falsified price/finance representations, and false repair claims induced purchase | Dealer/Lender: disputes facts; CLRA correction offer addresses consumer harm | Held: evidence supported fraud; trial court’s fraud finding and damages affirmed |
| Whether attorney fees for public‑benefit enforcement were recoverable under CCP §1021.5 | Flores: injunction conferred significant public benefit; fees should be shifted | Dealer/Lender: Flores was primarily seeking private relief; fees not justified | Held: fees awarded in part — court apportioned fees (30% public benefit) and reduced amount accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800 (1971) (addressed class actions and CLRA procedures prior to 1975 amendment)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.App.3d 30 (1975) (applied Vasquez to require CLRA procedures for conduct described in the statute)
- Miller v. Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., 46 Cal.4th 630 (2009) (example of pleading CLRA, UCL, and fraud claims together)
- Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235 (2009) (illustrative case of overlapping CLRA and UCL allegations)
- Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 208 Cal.App.4th 201 (2012) (another example recognizing overlap of consumer statutes)