Boling

INTRODUCTION

This appeal is a companion to the appeal in another case we decide today (Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc. (Mar. 2, 2015, G049106) [nonpub. opn.].) Despite having lost a motion for summary judgment and having a judgment entered against him, appellant Mark Boling inexplicably put in for over $300,000 in attorney fees, on the theory that he had actually prevailed against respondent DTG Operations, Inc., the company that operates Dollar Rent A Car (Dollar). The trial court found Boling was not entitled to fees. We affirm. Boling did not make the showing necessary to obtain an attorney fee award under either of the statutes upon which he based his fee motion. The trial court had the discretion to make this determination, and Boling has not shown how this discretion was abused.

FACTS

A detailed recitation of the facts underlying this appeal can be found in our opinion regarding Boling’s appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted Dollar’s motion for summary judgment. Briefly, Boling sued Dollar under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) after discovering a small discrepancy between the amount quoted on…