Wohlgemuth v. Caterpillar Inc.
207 Cal. App. 4th 1252
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Wohlgemuth purchased a new motor home with an engine warrantied by Caterpillar Inc. and later alleged engine defects under the Song-Beverly Act.
- Plaintiffs claimed repeated repairs were unsuccessful and sought remedies such as refund or replacement under the Act.
- Before trial, Caterpillar served a 998 offer: $50,000 in exchange for dismissal with prejudice and release, with no mention of fees or costs.
- Plaintiffs accepted the 998 offer, dismissed with prejudice, and then sought attorney fees and costs under section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Act.
- The trial court awarded fees and costs to plaintiffs, and Caterpillar appealed alleging no favorable judgment and that Caterpillar was the prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs can be prevailing parties under 1794(d) despite dismissal. | Wohlgemuth prevailed by achieving settlement relief. | No judgment in plaintiffs' favor; dismissal precludes prevailing party status. | Yes; dismissal can constitute a final disposition; plaintiffs may prevail. |
| Whether a dismissal with prejudice qualifies as a judgment for purposes of 1794(d). | A final disposition or judgment broad enough to include settlements. | Only a formal judgment in plaintiff’s favor counts. | Yes; a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under 998 can be the equivalent of a judgment for 1794(d). |
| Whether acceptance of a 998 offer silent on fees entitles plaintiffs to fees under 1794(d). | Silent on fees indicates fees are recoverable as allowed by statute. | A lack of explicit sentence on fees invalidates fee recovery unless a judgment exists. | Not reached; the court assumed acceptance valid for purposes of the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro, 27 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (compromise with dismissal can be equivalent to judgment)
- On-Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (section 998 offers silent on fees still allow fee recovery)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (remedial purpose of Song-Beverly Act; fees encouraged)
- Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay, 57 Cal.App.4th 1139 (Cal.App.4th 1997) (pretrial dismissal does not preclude fee awards under statutes)
- Chinn v. KMR Property Management, 166 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (pretrial disposition can serve as judgment for purposes of fees)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (court adopted pragmatic prevailing party approach when undefined)
- Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 32 Cal.4th 1246 (Cal. 2004) (reconsidered Reveles on related grounds)
- Goodstein v. Bank of San Pedro, 27 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice as judgment-equivalent)