Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV08746, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV08746    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 52

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff Charlotte V. Jackson moves for $91,949.25 in attorney fees and $9,867.13 in costs under Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d).   

Evidentiary Objections

            Defendant FCA US, LLC makes three objections to the declaration of Norman F. Taylor.  Objection Nos. 1 and 2 are overruled.  Objection No. 3 is sustained.           

            Defendant makes three objections to the declaration of Richard M. Wirtz.  All three objections are overruled.

Plaintiff makes one objection to the declaration of Erin E. Hanson.  The objection is overruled.    

Lodestar

            Plaintiff seeks attorney fees based on the following hours and rates:

Hourly Rates

For hourly rates, “the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys.”  (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436.)  Courts may rely on their “own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (Id. at p. 437, citations omitted.)

Plaintiff’s counsel sometimes used its most experienced attorneys to do work that could have been done by a less experienced attorney with a lower rate.  For example, Norman F. Taylor has decades of experience, participated in writing the CACI jury instructions for Song-Beverly Act cases, and has written two books on this area of law.  (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 6, 9, 10.)  Yet he billed significant amounts for relatively simple work: 5.2 hours to “review and file documents” and “draft and prepare” discovery requests (id., Ex. 1, p. 4), 4.8 hours to review defendant’s responses and prepare a meet and confer letter (ibid), and 0.7 hours to “check the trial calendar; draft and prepare plaintiff’s CMC statement and notice of posting jury fees.”  (Id., p. 3.)  Similarly, on June 14, 2022, senior attorney Amy R. Rotman billed 0.4 hours at $500 hourly to “review and revise supplemental interrogatory” and “supplemental Requests for Production of Documents.”  (Wirtz Decl., Ex. A, p. 9.) 

Based on its knowledge of the legal market, its review of the credentials and experience of plaintiff’s attorneys, the routine nature of this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case, and the particular tasks performed by counsel, the court reduces the rates for plaintiff’s counsel and paralegals as shown below:

Hours

In calculating the lodestar, the court must determine whether the tasks performed by an attorney were necessary and whether the amount of time billed for each task was reasonable.  (Baxter v. Bock (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 775, 793.)  The moving party has the burden of proof on these issues.  (Ibid.)  The number of hours billed may be unreasonable if the case is “overstaffed” with too many lawyers, resulting in redundant or unnecessary work.  (Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 434).  A reduced award is justified when a case is “overlitigated” and the bills are “padded.”  (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38 (Morris).)  “ ‘[J]ust as there can be too many cooks in the kitchen, there can be too many lawyers on a case.’ ”  (Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.)

 For a “voluminous fee application,” courts may “make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure.”  (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 41; accord Morris, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 40 [“The court could properly have made an across-the-board reduction of 30 percent to accomplish the same purpose”].)

After reviewing counsel’s billing records (Taylor Decl., Ex. 1; Wirtz Decl., Ex. A), the court finds that some of plaintiff’s attorney fees were not reasonably incurred.  Using six different attorneys was inefficient.  In the court’s experience, assigning fewer attorneys to handle all aspects of a case is more efficient than dividing the same work among more attorneys.  This is especially true in a routine and relatively simple case like this one.  The court notes, however, that plaintiff’s counsel did not charge for many entries of internal communications.

Plaintiff’s counsel also spent excessive time on some tasks.  For example, on September 27, 2021, Norman F. Taylor spent 4.6 hours drafting form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.  (Taylor Decl., Ex. 1, p. 4.)  Taylor has represented consumers in Song-Beverly Act cases for 36 years (Taylor Decl., ¶ 6) and has propounded very similar discovery many times before.  Plaintiff’s counsel also billed over 19 hours and $8,000 (across numerous entries) for this motion for attorney fees, which is quite similar to prior motions plaintiff’s counsel has filed in other cases, including cases in this Department.  

Plaintiff also includes numerous entries for attorneys and paralegals doing clerical work that should not be billed at all.  “[P]urely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them.”  (Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei (1989) 491 U.S. 274, 288, fn. 10.)  The court will give a few examples to illustrate.  On May 23, 2022, senior trial attorney Jessica R. Underwood billed 0.1 hours to “[d]raft, review, and revise email to mediator Akasaka regarding schedule.”  (Id., p. 8.)    On August 23, 2022, Underwood billed 0.2 hours at $500 hourly for “telephone conference with the Court; Clerk called to advise of new time for hearing.”  (Wirtz Decl., Ex. A, p. 20.)  On September 7, 2022, Underwood billed 0.1 hours to “Obtain CourtConnect login for Final Status Conference hearing.”

Similarly, on March 12, 2021, paralegal Lusine Musat billed 0.4 hours at $250 hourly for “Rec’d Court’s Ntc of CMC, calendared in Abacus w/ all associated events, scanned and saved in file.”  (Taylor Decl., Ex. 1, p. 2.)  On March 26, 2021, Musat billed 0.2 hours for “Rec’d Court’s conformed POS of S&C to Def. FCA, saved in file.”  (Ibid.)  On July 6, 2021, Musat billed 0.5 for “Rec'd CMC ruling; calendared” various dates.  (Id., p. 3.)  Paralegals for at Wirtz Law APC billed several entries for routine emails with court reporting services and opposing counsel to arrange for court reporters and for virtual depositions.  (Wirtz Decl., Ex. A, pp. 15, 28.)  Wirtz Law APC’s paralegals also billed for receiving an email about the vehicle surrender appointment and calendaring the appointment (id., p. 24), “review[ing] FedEx tracking information” of the settlement funds, and processing the settlement funds (id., p. 26).

After reviewing all the bills, the court reduces the attorneys’ hours across-the-board by five percent and reduces the paralegals’ hours across-the-board by 25 percent. 

Multiplier

Plaintiff seeks a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar.  The court finds no multiplier is appropriate.  Multipliers may be awarded based on factors including “(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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) 

This case did not involve novel or difficult questions.  Plaintiff’s counsel achieved a successful result but did not demonstrate exceptional skill in litigating the case.  Counsel’s hourly rates adequately account for representation on contingency.  (See Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.)

Other Costs

            Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence of her other costs totaling $9,867.13.  A “verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.”  (612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.)  Each firm representing plaintiff submitted a separate verified memorandum of costs.  Defendant did not challenge any of the costs claimed. 

DISPOSITION

            Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs is granted in part.  After accounting for reductions in hourly rates, a five percent across-the-board cut in attorney hours, and a 25 percent across-the-board cut in paralegal hours, the court calculates the award this way:

          Plaintiff Charlotte V. Jackson shall recover $50,803.41 in expenses and attorney fees from defendant FCA US, LLC.

                                                            IT IS SO ORDERED

Date:   February 24, 2023

____________________________________________