Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV33775, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33775 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses
is granted in the reduced amount of $42,659.82.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jeffrey Rapport
brought this lemon law action against FCA US,
LLC (“Defendant”). The parties agreed to a settlement. Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Attorney Fees requesting fees, costs, and expenses award totaling
$52,256.82. Defendant filed an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter
of right. Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b). Attorney’s fees are also
recoverable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. Code Civ.
Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10). The moving party bears the burden of
establishing entitlement to attorney fees. Christian Research Institute v.
Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.
Courts begin this inquiry “with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the
number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” PLCM
Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) From there, the “lodestar
figure may then be adjusted [according to a multiplier enhancement] based on
consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the
fair market value for the legal services provided.” Ibid. Relevant
multiplier factors include “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which
the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, [and]
(4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24
Cal.4th 1122, 1132.
The Court has broad discretion to determine the amount of a
reasonable attorney’s fee award, which will not be overturned absent a
“manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary
findings not supported by substantial evidence.” Bernardi v. County of
Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-1394.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff requests $50,614.00 in attorney’s fees.
Under Civ. Code § 1794(d), "[i]f the buyer prevails in
an action under [the Song-Beverly Act], the buyer shall be allowed by the court
to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs
and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended,
determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in
connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action."
In the present case, there is no dispute that Plaintiff is
the prevailing party in this action and is entitled to reasonable attorney fees
and costs. Thus, the only question to be determined by this motion is the award
amount.
Plaintiff seeks $50,614.00 in attorney’s fees. The requested
hours breakdown as follows:
Christopher Barry 17.4 hours at $695
per hour for a total of $12,093.00
Gregory T. Babbitt
9.5 hours at $610 per hour for a total of $5,795.00
Leonard Kolakowski
37.0 hours at $510 per hour for a total of $18,870.00
Michael A. Klitzke 4.0
hours at a rate of $395 for a total of $1,580.00
Carly Roman 32.1
hours at $350 per hour for a total of $11,235.00
Brandon Rodriguez 5.1
hours at $195 per hour for a total of $994.50
Jeanette Abbenhaus
0.3 at $155 per hour $46.50
1. Reasonableness of Hourly rates
Based on the Court's knowledge of the local legal market and
the low degree of difficulty in this case, the hourly rates requested for
attorneys Barry, Babbit, and Kolakowski are not reasonable. Therefore, the
Court will award attorney’s fees at the reduced rate of $575 for attorneys
Barry and Babbit and $500 for Kolakowski. The rest of the requested rates are
reasonable.
Reasonableness of Hours Billed
Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested fee,
arguing that the record does not support that the reported hours were actually
or reasonably billed.
A prevailing party's verified billing invoices are prima
facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily
incurred. Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682. "In
challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are
claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific
items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the
evidence." Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 240 Cal.App.4th
459, 488 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court agrees that some of the contested hours are
excessive for this routine lemon law case and reduces the hours as follows.
·
Michael Klitzke billed for 1.2 hours drafting
the Complaint. Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits (“COE”) at p. 1.
The five-page complaint contains few case-specific facts and should have taken
no more than 0.4 hours.
·
On 12/31/22, Leonard Kolakowski billed 1.2 hours
to “Review all docs and correspondence and run damages calculations for
preparing 998.” Id. at p. 2. Because
of the routine nature of this task, it should not have taken more than 0.8
hours.
·
On 3/8/23, Kolakowski billed another 1.2 hours
to “Review file, damages correspondence etc., to respond to client.” Id. at p. 3. 1.2 hours to review the
file in preparation to respond to client is excessive. Reduced to 0.5 hours.
·
On 3/9/2023, Kolakowski billed 1.0 to “Research
Re all Chrysler recalls et al.” Id. at p. 3. This is reasonable. No
reduction.
·
Attorney Gregory T. Babbit billed 6.3 hours, and
paralegal Brandon Rodriguez billed 2.1 hours to prepare and revise the discovery
request to be propounded to Defendant. COE, Ex. 3. at p. 6. Because these initial
discovery requests are substantially the same in every lemon law case, the Court
reduces Babbit’s time on this task to 3 hours.
·
Babbit billed 2.2 hours between 9/28/24 and
9/29/24 in connection with preparation of notice of deposition of Defendant’s
PMQ. Id. at p. 6. Similar to the written discovery requests, this is
excessive for these largely boilerplate documents. The Court reduces the hours
billed to 1.0.
·
On 10/30/24, Christopher P. Barry billed 0.3
hours, and attorney Carley Roman billed 0.6 hours to “Draft notice of
deposition to FCA.” Id. at p. 7.
Since Babbit had already drafted a deposition notice, it should not have taken
two more attorneys an additional. 0.9 hours to draft another one. Barry’s 0.3
hours are reduced to 0.
·
Roman billed 1.4 hours 11/28/2023 to “Draft
Correspondence to Client re settlement 998, review entire file for
damages.” Id. at p. 7. This is
excessive, considering the time already spent reviewing the file and
calculating damages. Reduced to 1.0 hours.
·
Barry billed 2.5 hours on 12/18/2023 preparing
for deposition of FCA PMQ. Id. at p. 8. Based on the routine nature of
the case, this is an excessive amount of preparation time. Reduced to 1.5
hours.
·
Roman billed 1.6 hours 1/4/2024 for drafting the
settlement agreement. Id. at p. 8. Because the settlement agreement contains
little case-specific content and is typical of the settlement agreements in
lemon law cases, the Court reduces the billable time to 1 hour.
·
Finally, Barry spent 3.7 hours drafting the fee
motion from 7/23/2024 through 8/2/2024 and anticipates spending another 4.6
hours reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, and attending the hearing. Id.
at p. 11. This is excessive for a straightforward fee motion. The Court reduces
the number of billable hours to 4.5 for drafting the motion, reviewing the
opposition, preparing the reply, and attending the hearing.
Accordingly, the Court awards attorney’s fees in the amount
of $41,017.00, which breaks down as follows:
Christopher Barry 12.3 hours at $575 per hour for a total of
$7,072.50
Gregory T. Babbitt 5 hours at $575 per hour for a total of $2,875.00
Leonard Kolakowski 35.9 hours at $500 per hour for a total
of $17,950.00
Michael A. Klitzke 3.2 hours at a rate of $395 for a total
of $1,264.00
Carly Roman 30.9 hours at $350 per hour for a total of $10,815.00
Brandon Rodriguez 5.1 hours at $195 per hour for a total of
$994.50
Jeanette Abbenhaus 0.3 at $155 per hour $46.50
II. Costs and Expenses
Plaintiff requests $1,642.82 in costs and expenses. Defendant
does not contest these costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court awards full
costs and expenses.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is
granted in the reduced amount of $42,659.82.