Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 23STCV10768, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV10768, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10768 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: 52

Plaintiff Forrest C. Bennett’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff Forrest C. Bennett moves for $30,712.50 attorney fees and $586.45 in other expenses under Civil Code section 1794(d).

Evidentiary Objections

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC makes 10 objections to the declaration of Susan A. Yeck. All 10 objections are overruled.

Miscellaneous Expenses

Plaintiff moves for $586.45 in expenses other than attorney fees. (Yeck Decl., Ex. 2.) Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC does not contest these costs.

Attorney Fees: Hourly Rate

Plaintiff seeks to recover fees based on attorney Susan A. Yeck’s hourly rate of $650. 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.)

Yeck has extensive experience as an attorney generally and in consumer warranty cases. (Yeck Decl., ¶¶ 13-14.) Due to the routine nature of this case, however, the court finds the reasonable market rate for Yeck’s services is $575 hourly.

Attorney Fees: Hours

Plaintiff seeks attorney fees for 37.8 hours billed by Susan A. Yeck. 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.) 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.)

The court finds plaintiff did not reasonably incur all fees claimed. Yeck billed 7.8 hours incurred between October 9 and December 11, 2023, for “Handling of final issues with underlying case to coordinate surrender and payment of repurchase damages. Begin work on Fee motion, Memo of Costs, Fee Bill, and Declaration of Susan A. Yeck in support of Motion. Finish motion.” (Yeck Decl., Ex. 1.) This entry combines multiple tasks done over a period of two months. Yeck’s use of block billing makes it difficult to determine how much time she spent on each task. (See Jaramillo v. County of Orange (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 811, 830 [“block billing is not objectionable ‘per se,’ though it certainly does increase the risk that the trial court, in a reasonable exercise of its discretion, will discount a fee request”.)

The court finds that these tasks did not reasonably require 7.8 hours of work. The bulk of the 7.8 hours billed should have been spent on this motion for attorney fees. This routine motion did not reasonably require many hours of work. The court therefore will reduce this entry to 5.0 hours.

Plaintiff also anticipated spending 6.0 hours reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, and preparing for and attending the oral argument. (Yeck Decl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s reply brief was short and did not require substantial research or analysis. The court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred only 4.5 hours for this task.

The court finds plaintiff reasonably incurred all other claimed attorney fees. The court will therefore reduce the lodestar from 37.8 hours to 33.5 hours of attorney fees.

Adjusted Lodestar

The court reduces plaintiff’s lodestar to 33.5 hours of attorney fees at $575 per hour. The adjusted lodestar therefore totals $19,262.50.

Multiplier

Plaintiff moves for a 1.25 multiplier. 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.)

The court rejects plaintiff’s request for a 1.25 multiplier. This case did not involve novel or difficult questions. Plaintiff’s counsel achieved moderate success 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.)

Defendant argues the court should reduce the lodestar using a 0.66 multiplier. Negative multipliers are generally disfavored for remedial statutes such as the Song-Beverly Act. (Reynolds v. Ford Motor Company (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1112.) Defendant cites no authority permitting negative multipliers for fee awards under the Song-Beverly Act. The court exercises its discretion not to apply a negative multiplier.

Disposition

Plaintiff Forrest C. Bennett’s motion for attorney fees and costs is granted in part. Plaintiff Forrest C. Bennett shall recover $19,262.50 in attorney fees plus $586.45 in other expenses from defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC.