Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al

Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al

Plaintiff - Appellee,:	TRAVIS Z. GONZALES, an individual
Defendant - Appellant,:	CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois Corporation and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation
Case Number:	14-56305
Filed:	August 13, 2014
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other Fraud

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
October 20, 2016	TRAVIS GONZALES V. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
January 6, 2017	TRAVIS GONZALES V. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 6, 2017	Filing 9028671311 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) 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. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) The California Court of Appeal has also instructed, however, that [d]eterminations of whether [a plaintiff] is a prevailing plaintiff and the amount to be awarded, if any, are to be made, in the first instance, by the trial court in the sound exercise of its discretion. Kim, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 788. Here, as CarMax argues, although Gonzales was awarded summary judgment on appeal, our opinion did not order a particular remedy the district court must still enter a final judgment on remand. Consequently, although it is relatively clear that Gonzales achieved his litigation objectives on appeal, the district court should, after fashioning a remedy in conformity with our opinion, determine in the first instance whether Gonzales qualifies as a prevailing plaintiff under Section 1780(e) of the CLRA and the reasonableness of Gonzales requested attorney s fees in both case No. 14- 56842 and 14-56305. IT IS SO ORDERED. [10256734] [14-56305, 14-56842]

Date Filed

Document Text

January 6, 2017

Filing 9028671311 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) 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. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) The California Court of Appeal has also instructed, however, that [d]eterminations of whether [a plaintiff] is a prevailing plaintiff and the amount to be awarded, if any, are to be made, in the first instance, by the trial court in the sound exercise of its discretion. Kim, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 788. Here, as CarMax argues, although Gonzales was awarded summary judgment on appeal, our opinion did not order a particular remedy the district court must still enter a final judgment on remand. Consequently, although it is relatively clear that Gonzales achieved his litigation objectives on appeal, the district court should, after fashioning a remedy in conformity with our opinion, determine in the first instance whether Gonzales qualifies as a prevailing plaintiff under Section 1780(e) of the CLRA and the reasonableness of Gonzales requested attorney s fees in both case No. 14- 56842 and 14-56305. IT IS SO ORDERED. [10256734] [14-56305, 14-56842]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Travis Gonzales v. Carmax Auto Superstores, LLC, et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellee,: TRAVIS Z. GONZALES, an individual
Represented By:	Hallen D. Rosner
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant - appellant,: CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company
Represented By:	Kurt Andrew Schlichter
Represented By:	Steven C. Shonack
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant - appellant,: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois Corporation
Represented By:	Kurt Andrew Schlichter
Represented By:	Steven C. Shonack
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant - appellant,: SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation
Represented By:	Kurt Andrew Schlichter
Represented By:	Steven C. Shonack
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?