Plaintiff Ruby Gomez moves for $45,613.76 in attorney fees and other costs from defendant Kia America, Inc.

Hourly Rates

Defendant argues plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates are excessive.  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.)

Based on plaintiff’s counsel’s credentials and experience, the court finds their hourly rates are reasonable.

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.)  “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.  General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.  Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.”  (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) 

Plaintiff claims a total of 93.1 hours of billable attorney fees.  With one exception, plaintiff demonstrates the fees incurred were reasonable.  Plaintiff presents detailed billing records with hundreds of entries, few of which are for more than one hour.  The billing entries show plaintiff’s counsel worked efficiently. 

Plaintiff did not reasonably incur the $800 in fees for 1.6 hours spent reviewing defendant’s motions in limine on March 13, 2024.  (Barry Decl., Ex. 4, p. 25.)  Plaintiff had already accepted defendant’s settlement offer on February 7, 2024.  (Barry Decl., ¶ 33, Ex. 3.)  Reviewing the motions in limine was unnecessary. 

Defendant also argues the court should reduce plaintiff’s lodestar for time spent traveling to the courthouse for hearings.  “[A]ttorney’s fees for travel hours may be awarded if the court determines they were reasonably incurred.”  (Roe v. Halbig (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 286, 312.)  Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably incurred these fees.  Plaintiff billed for one attorney’s travel to and from the courthouse only three times: on October 31, 2023 (Barry Decl., Ex. 4, p. 20), August 7, 2024 (id., p. 27), and for this hearing (id., p. 29).  Such limited travel was not unreasonable.

The court will reduce plaintiff’s lodestar by $800, resulting in $42,842.50 in recoverable attorney fees.

Negative Multiplier

Defendant contends the court should apply a negative multiplier of 40%.  Doing so is unwarranted.

Other Costs

            Plaintiff claims $1,971.26 in other expenses.  Defendant does not oppose the motion as to those expenses.

Disposition

            Plaintiff Ruby Gomez’s motion for attorney fees and costs is granted in part.  Plaintiff Ruby Gomez shall recover $44,813.76 in attorney fees from defendant Kia America, Inc.