A woman who expected her 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid to be her dream car wants Honda to pay for not delivering the high mileage it promised. But rather than joining other owners in a class-action lawsuit, she is going solo in small claims court, an unusual move that could offer a bigger payout if it doesn't backfire....

....Heather Peters says her car never came close to getting the promised 50 miles per gallon, and as its battery deteriorated, it was getting only 30 mpg. She wants Honda to pay for her trouble and the extra money she spent on gas.

Peters, a former lawyer who long ago gave up her bar card, has devised a unique legal vehicle to drive Honda into court — a small claims suit that could cost the company up to $10,000 in her case and every other individual case filed in the same manner.

If other claimants follow her lead, she estimates Honda could be forced to pay $2 billion in damages. No high-priced lawyers are involved and the process is streamlined.

Aaron Jacoby, a Los Angeles attorney who heads the automotive industry group at the Arent Fox law firm, said Peters' strategy, while intriguing, is unlikely to change the course of class-action litigation.

"In the class-action, the potential claimants don't have to do anything," Jacoby said. "It's designed to be an efficient way for a court to handle multiple claims of the same type."

He also questioned her criticism of class-action lawyers for the fees they receive. Jacoby, who handles such cases, said lawyers who take on the multiple clients involved do extensive work — sometimes spanning years — and are not in it just for money.

"They're representing the underdog and they believe they are performing a public duty," he said. "Many of these people could not get lawyers to represent them individually."

American Honda's offices were closed for the holidays and no one could be reached for comment. Peters said the company has tried five times to delay the trial but each effort was rebuffed.

The upside of Peters' unusual move, she says, is that litigants are not allowed to have lawyers argue in small claims court in California. This means any award will not be diluted by attorney's fees. Honda would have to appoint a non-lawyer employee to argue its side in court.

Thing is, if Honda had just fixed her damn battery and given her a smile and a travel mug, she would have settled down and it would have cost Honda less than one hour of their own lawyers' fees.

I was especially dumbfounded about the class-action lawsuit. The claimants get a three (3) figure check and a discount on a new Honda while the lawyers get $8.5 million. I'm not someone who supports tort reform in order to just put ceilings on awards, but I would not fight tort reform that reigns in class-action abuses by lawyers.

Class-action lawsuits are a joke, but I don't know if there's a better system. While I'm pleased at this story in a "score one for the little guy" way, I'm not sure that bogging down the legal system with thousands of small-claims lawsuits every time there's an issue of this nature is any better. Especially when you consider that if this plaintiff wasn't a trained attorney she might find herself outmaneuvered in the courtroom by a carefully advised representative of Honda.

Curious that none of our resident lawyers have chimed in on this.

Alaren? MGK? Thoughts?

Darilian

I know, I kept waiting for Golux13 to have something pithy and lawyer-y to say, but the silence is deafening.

Some lawyers actually have to do lawyer work during the day.

Once in a while, I'm one of them.

Curious that none of our resident lawyers have chimed in on this.

Alaren? MGK? Thoughts?

Peters, a former lawyer who long ago gave up her bar card, has devised a unique legal vehicle to drive Honda into court — a small claims suit that could cost the company up to $10,000 in her case and every other individual case filed in the same manner.

Simple truth: small claims court isn't a universal panacea because most people have no fucking idea of how to behave in court. They act like it's Judge Judy or something. I have seen judges straight-up throw out small claims cases that had perfectly valid causes of action and probably would have won because the plaintiff wasn't sufficiently respectful (and they were right to do so - people should respect the courts).

I'd have to completely disagree with the statement. Judges treat their courtrooms like their own personal fiefdom. There is nothing in the law that says I need to adhere to some individual judge's idea of the sufficiently respectful. Judges are there to represent to law. If I have a valid legal claim, it shouldn't be subject to a judge taking offense to a hole in the pair of jeans I'm wearing.

Where did he say it was about your clothes? I think it's a question of respecting the system, the judge's time, and the serious nature of a court proceeding. If you decide to be a smart-ass, or crack jokes, or (probably more likely) come in expecting the judge to hold your hand and walk you through what you need to do in the courtroom then you're not showing the court that you've taken the issue seriously.

For that matter, the way you dress does make a difference. Doesn't matter if it's court, a parent-teacher conference, or a job interview--if you show up in a NASCAR t-shirt, a ball cap, and torn jeans you're not going to get the same respect from the person across the table from you as you would have otherwise. Maybe you think that's unfair, but there are some pretty strong psychological principles at play there.

He said it was about being "sufficiently respectful" which includes but is not limited to the clothes someone wears to court. There are well documented cases where a judge has thrown out a case because of the clothes someone was wearing, so it's not like that statement is out of the blue.

Again, it shouldn't matter whether the judge thinks you've taken the issue seriously or not. If I have a valid legal claim, the idea that a judge can ignore the legality based on their idea of whether I'm sufficiently respectful or not is complete bunk. This is not a job interview. It's arguing the legality of a claim made. An interviewer should have every right to judge whoever they are hiring based on whatever criteria they think fits the needs of the job they are hiring. A judge should not have the right to throw out legal claims on their whim.

For one thing, "should not" and "don't" are not the same thing. If you want to make a point about the judge's unfair biases, feel free to tempt fate with your favorite t-shirt. If you want to win your case, though, I'd suggest doing everything you can whether you think it should be a factor or not. That's just me, YMMV.

For another, though--you're assuming the legal question is going to be simple and cut and dry, and I think that's an overreach. If the role of the two parties in the case is even partly to persuade the judge to interpret the law in their favor, I would say the judge's impression of their arguments (and that impression will include their clothes, their tone, their professionalism, and their attitude) may have some bearing. If your case is absolutely foolproof, your clothes probably won't matter a bit, but if you're trying to sway the judge on a distinct point that could go either way, I'd again suggest doing whatever you can to make sure your point is coming across.