I don't understand the plaintiff's strategy here. Regardless, whether I understand it or not, it didn't work.
Plaintiff files a lemon law case and prevails, with General Motors agreeing to take back the vehicle and pay $100,000. So at the case management conference on June 2, 2023, the parties tell the court the case has settled, the court orders a dismissal to be filed within 45 days, and it's time for the plaintiff (as the prevailing party) to file a motion for attorney's fees, which the settlement agreement permits.
The Clerk subsequently sends out a notice saying that the case will be dismissed on August 15, 2023 if no one shows good cause otherwise, which no one does. Then, two weeks later, on August 31, 2023, plaintiff files his motion for attorney's fees. That motion gets set to be heard on April 26, 2024.
Okay. That's all straightforward. (Now, why it takes eight months to get a hearing date is beyond me, but whatever. San Diego is . . . busy?)
Here's what I don't understand:
Plaintiff files his attorney fee motion on August 31, 2023, but doesn't serve it until April 4, 2024.
Why?!
You filed it already. Just put it in the mail. Yes, it'll give the other side more time to respond. Who cares?! They could already pull the motion off the court's website if they wanted to (and probably did). Why not serve it simultaneously with filing it?
Whatever the theory, plaintiff decided to wait those extra months to serve.
A fatal flaw.
The trial court holds that the motion was untimely because it wasn't "filed and served" within 180 days of the noticed dismissal, and the Court of Appeal affirms.
That's tens of thousands of dollars (at least) of attorney's fees lost as a result of a seemingly inexplicable decision not to serve a motion alongside filing it.
Live and learn, I guess.
