Legal Opinion
Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 6, 2017No. 14-56305, 14-56842PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
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.
Gonzales’s application for appellate attorney’s fees presents the following issues: (1) whether Gonzales is barred from collecting attorney’s fees because…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.California Supreme Court · 2009
- Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Kim v. EUROMOTORS WEST/THE AUTO GALLERYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Benson v. Southern California Auto Sales, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Valdez v. Seidner-Miller, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Cesar Hernandez v. Edmonds Memory Care, LlcCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- Estakhrian v. ObenstineDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2017
- Estakhrian v. ObenstineDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2017
- Mikki v. Lifemark Group, Inc. CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.