We previously reported and analyzed the so-called “Benson-tender”, which is how California Courts treat a CLRA defendant’s response to a pre-suit demand for correction under the CLRA vis-a-vis the consumer’s later demand for demand for attorneys’ fees. Our Daily Journal Article entitled “Different Approaches to CLRA Damages”, authored by Severson attorneys Austin Kenney and Colin Murphy, can be found here: Benson Article 2.23.17.
A California Court of Appeal has now issued another decision discussing the so-called Benson-tender, and how Courts should treat the respective parties’ conduct when the consumer also alleges non-CLRA claims, even if the same conduct forms the basis for the CLRA and non-CLRA claims. In Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc. (No. C075774; filed 11/27/2017), the California Court of Appeal confirmed again that an automobile dealer’s and lender’s reasonable correction offer in response to a consumer’s 30-day demand for correction under the CLRA prevents the consumer from maintaining a cause of action for damages under the CLRA. The correction, however, does not prevent the consumer from pursuing other remedies based on other statutory violations or common law causes of action based on the same conduct that formed the basis for the consumer’s CLRA claim “because the remedies are cumulative” and “non-exhaustive”.
The Severson & Werson Financial Services Law Bulletin on the Flores decision from Mr. Kenney and Mr. Murphy is here: Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators Bulletin.
For questions about Benson-tenders and/or responding to consumers’ 30-day correction letters under the CLRA, please contact Mr. Kenney at firstname.lastname@example.org or Mr. Murphy at email@example.com