Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV30678, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30678    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 52

8/19/21: Plaintiff Joseph P. Castro filed a complaint against defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc., d/b/a Jaguar Land Rover Anaheim Hills for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability and (2) breach of express warranty.

           Plaintiff alleges his new 2018 Range Rover was defective because its infotainment system did not work.

Motion

Plaintiff moves for $36,958.05 in attorney fees after settlement.  Plaintiff incurred $27,635 in fees and $2,105.15 in costs, and anticipates another $2,700 in fees and $29.15 in costs for the reply.  Plaintiff moves for an enhancement multiplier of 0.25.

Opposition

Plaintiff seeks excessive hours.  Many entries are duplicative and inefficient.  They billed for attorneys performing paralegal work and billed for paralegals performing clerical work that should not be billed at all. 

Plaintiff’s rates of $500 for Zolonz, $450 for Parnell, and $150 for paralegals are too high.  This is a simple case, and they did routine tasks.

Most of the fees are for this motion itself.  None should be awarded for it because it was unnecessary.  When plaintiff demanded $29,500 in fees, defendant offered $10,000 immediately.  If that was not enough, defendant agreed to review the actual billing entries.  Plaintiff did not respond and simply filed this motion.  When plaintiff demanded $29,500, the incurred fees only totaled under $20,000.  The demand was unreasonable.

Several entries are block billed.  For example, plaintiff claims 3 hours for mediation on May 27, but it was a joint mediation totaling 5 hours for 4 cases. 

No multiplier should be applied. 

At most, plaintiff should get $10,080.

Reply

Defendant makes various misrepresentations about everything. 

The rates are reasonable.  Defendant relies only on a single order reducing our rates.  Plaintiff, meanwhile, showed evidence justifying higher rates than claimed.

Defendant objects to 95 billing entries.  Defendant has no real basis or arguments behind them.  All the entries are fair.

Plaintiff is entitled to get fees for this motion.  The offer to settle the fees was unreasonable because it required plaintiff to waive attorney-client and work product privileges to let defendant review the full billing records.

Discussion

The motion is sloppy and inconsistent.  Plaintiff’s supporting declaration by Stephen Parnell is non-sensical; it is 292 paragraphs and has 1,300 pages of exhibits.  Very little of it has anything to do with this case. 

Procedural Irregularities

No one filed a notice of settlement.  The papers by both sides generally ignore the other defendant, dealership Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover.  It was never dismissed, and it is a party to the settlement.  (Parnell Decl., Ex. 1.)

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiff Joseph P. Castro’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Plaintiff Joseph P. Castro moves for $36,958.05 in attorney fees and costs under Civil Code section 1794(d).  Under the Song-Beverly Act, a plaintiff may recover “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.”  (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff makes 60 pages of objections—that are not numbered—to the declaration of Brian Takahashi.  Regarding motions for summary judgment, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b) requires that “[e]ach written objection must be numbered consecutively.”  Though this rule does not apply to other motions, consecutively numbering objections is necessary for the court to make clear rulings on them.  All objections to the declaration of Brian Takahashi are overruled.

Plaintiff makes three objections to the declaration of Bryan A. Reynolds.  All three objections are sustained.

Lodestar

Plaintiff’s counsel claims a total lodestar of $30,335 in attorney fees.  Plaintiff billed $27,635 at the time of filing this motion: 7.3 hours by attorney Adam Zolonz at $500 hourly, 7.5 hours by paralegal Sherri Rangel at $150 hourly, and 50.8 by attorney Stephen Parnell at $450 hourly.  (Zolonz Decl., Ex. 2, p. 6.)  Plaintiff also anticipated another $2,700 (6.0 hours by Parnell at $450 hourly) to review the opposition to this motion, draft the reply, and prepare for and attend the hearing.  (Parnell Decl., ¶¶ 267, 290.)

Hourly Rates

Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable.  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.)

Attorney Adam Zolonz’s rate of $500 hourly is reasonable.  He has practiced law since 2007 (Zolonz Decl., ¶ 2), and has represented over 4,000 consumers in Song-Beverly Act cases in the past seven years (id., ¶ 5).  Attorney Stephen Parnell’s rate of $450 hourly is also reasonable.  He began practicing law in Indiana in 2005.  (Parnell Decl., ¶ 233.)  He has practiced consumer law in California since 2017.  (Id., ¶ 239.)  Finally, paralegal Sherri Rangel’s rate of $150 hourly is reasonable.  She has decades of experience as a paralegal, though she does not have an official paralegal certification.  (Rangel Decl., ¶¶ 2-11.)  These rates accurately reflect the market for attorneys and paralegals in Los Angeles.

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.)  “Reasonable compensation does not include compensation for padding in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts.”  (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38 (Morris), internal quotes omitted.)

           After reviewing the detailed billing records (Zolonz Decl., Ex. 2) and defendant’s objections to them (Takahashi Decl., Ex. B), the court finds plaintiff’s counsel billed a reasonable number of hours in this case with two exceptions.

First, plaintiff’s counsel billed 20.5 hours by attorney Parnell at $450 hourly over five entries on August 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30, 2022, with the same description:

Identify 43 JLRNA cases active in the last 24 months about which I have personal knowledge that may help to establish the pattern of dilatory, bad faith and unlawful conduct by JLRNA and its counsel.  Work through all 43 files, identifying documents to use as exhibits and completing a spreadsheet of relevant prelitigation, litigation, mediation, settlement and settlement performance events to permit distillation into concise explanation for Court in anticipated future fee motion in this case.  

(Zolonz Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 2-4.) 

These 20.5 hours were not reasonably incurred in connection with this action.  On a motion for attorney fees, the necessary facts are generally limited to those on market rates for comparable attorneys, evidence of the attorneys’ qualifications and experience, a summary of the lodestar, and the billing entries.  Parnell’s declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion is an astonishing 292 paragraphs and 1,318 pages including exhibits, most of which concern the minutiae of the other cases against Jaguar that Parnell reviewed.  Any “pattern of dilatory, bad faith and unlawful conduct by” defendant and its counsel is not relevant.  The appropriate inquiry is “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” the case.  (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)  The court therefore reduces plaintiff’s lodestar by $9,225.

Second, plaintiff’s counsel billed 1.8 hours for clerical tasks performed by Rangel at her rate of $150 hourly.  “[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.)

Plaintiff billed a total of $270 (1.8 hours at $150 hourly) for administrative tasks billed in six entries on November 22, December 2, December 10, 2021, and February 15, April 9, June 6, and August 16, 2022.  (Zolonz Decl., Ex. 2.)  The entries include purely clerical tasks such as: “Receive email from OC paralegal to serve their new email address for JLRNA cases.  Respond asking if all docs on all JLRNA cases should be served to the new address.  Receive affirmative response,” “Access atty portal to schedule remote appearance for 12/14 CMC, update file and file notes, update cal,” and “Add signatures to all of Ps written discovery documents to both Ds, scan, transfer to GD. Prepare email to OC to e-serve attachments.”  (Ibid.)  The court therefore reduces plaintiff’s lodestar by an additional $270.

Defendants argue plaintiff should recover no fees for work on this motion because plaintiff failed to accept or respond to defendants’ offer of $10,000 in attorney fees and expenses.  Plaintiff had the right to reject defendants’ offer.  Doing so was not unreasonable.  Except for the 20.5 hours billed by Parnell described above, plaintiff reasonably incurred all fees for work on this motion.

After adjustment, plaintiff’s lodestar totals $20,840 in attorney fees.

Multiplier

           Plaintiff seeks a 1.25 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 were effective but did not demonstrate exceptional skill.  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 Expenses

Plaintiff also claims $2,134.30 in other expenses.  Defendants did not challenge these expenses.  Plaintiff shall recover $2,134.30 for other expenses. 

Disposition  

           The motion is granted in part. 

Plaintiff Joseph P. Castro shall recover $22,974.30 (comprising $20,840 in attorney fees and $2,134.30 in other expenses) from defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Anaheim Hills Jaguar Land Rover, Inc., doing business as Jaguar Land Rover Anaheim Hills.