Pistotnik

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Galia Pistotnik sued Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, under the “lemon law” act,1 contending that her leased car was defective. Mercedes stipulated to liability, and at a bifurcated bench trial on November 2012 Pistotnik was awarded more than $45,000 in damages. Two weeks later at the second phase of the trial, the trial court declined to impose a civil penalty against Mercedes and awarded Pistotnik attorney’s fees of $50,000. As part of that ruling, the trial court found that “legal work was not necessary after May 21, 2012, and . . . that many time entries were excessive and unreasonable.” On December 31, 2012, the trial court entered a written judgment prepared by Mercedes that included both the $50,000 fee award and the trial court’s comments concerning the amount and reasonableness of those fees. On January 10, 2013, Pistotnik filed and served by FAX a Notice of Entry of Judgment to which the judgment was attached. On January 16, 2013, Mercedes filed and served a motion captioned as one seeking to clarify the trial court’s attorney’s fee ruling, or, in the alternative, to reconsider its order. The basis for the motion was the trial court’s earlier…