California Supreme Court Watch

Apr 28, 2021
Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, S267576.

#21-205 Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, S267576. (B293435; 60 Cal.App.5th 396; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC633169.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order awarding attorney fees in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the word “recovery” as used in the Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433.2) include attorney fees?

Review granted: 4/28/2021

Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full: 5/26/2022

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (2022) 13 Cal.5th 127.)

“We conclude that the Holder Rule [16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a)] does not limit the award of attorney’s fees where, as here, a buyer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute. The Holder Rule’s limitation extends only to ‘recovery hereunder.'”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Robie concurred.