Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV11244, Date: 2024-08-15 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: 23STCV11244    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Yauheni Klimkou’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

            Plaintiff Yauheni Klimkou moves for $80,383.60 in attorney fees and other costs from defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

Evidentiary Objections

            Defendant makes 10 objections to plaintiff’s evidence.  All 10 objections are overruled.

            Plaintiff makes eight objections to defendant’s evidence.  Objection No. 1 is sustained.  Objection Nos. 2-8 are overruled.

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 Sam Azimtash seeks a rate of $500 per hour.  That rate is slightly excessive.  Azimtash attended law school at the University of Minnesota.  (Azimtash Decl., ¶ 25.)  Before starting his own firm, he “was a senior associate at Theta Law Firm, LLP,” where he “litigated hundreds of” Song-Beverly Act cases on behalf of manufacturers.  (Id., ¶ 26.)  Other courts have awarded Azimtash a rate of $500 per hour.  (Id., ¶¶ 28-29.)  Azimtash, however, does not specify how many years of experience he has.  He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2019.  The court finds Azimtash’s experience and skill justify an hourly rate of $470.

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.)  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.)

Plaintiff claims a total of 122.1 hours of attorney fees.  With few exceptions, plaintiff demonstrates the fees incurred were reasonable.  Plaintiff’s billing records include hundreds of entries, most of which are under one hour.  Though the case was not heavily litigated, plaintiff adequately justifies nearly all the time billed.  Overall, the billing entries show plaintiff’s counsel worked efficiently. 

Defendant argues plaintiff’s counsel billed an excessive amount for communicating with his client. Though the total number of hours may seem large, as plaintiff notes, it amounts to about 1.7 hours per month.  Plaintiff reasonably incurred those fees.    

Defendant also argues plaintiff used improper block billing.  Courts have rejected the proposition “that block billing is never appropriate.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1010.)  “Trial courts retain discretion to penalize block billing when the practice prevents them from discerning which tasks are compensable and which are not.”  (Ibid.)  Here, defendant does not argue any of plaintiff’s attorney fees are not compensable.

Defendant’s specific objections on this basis do not have merit.  For example, defendant argues billing 3.2 hours for “Meeting with Plaintiff and inspection of the Subject Vehicle to confirm concerns noted in the repair history” was improper.  That is a single task.  Defendant also contends plaintiff block billed an entry of 1.6 hours described as “Review file, research causes of action for ASFA, CLRA, UCL, and Fraud; draft and revise Complaint; decision is to sue dealership for negligence and in discovery see if fraud is viable.”  That entry may combine different tasks, but it reflects highly efficient work.

Plaintiff’s counsel billed excessive amounts for some administrative or clerical tasks.  Azimtash billed 0.1 hours for “Receipt and review Plaintiff’s registration”, 0.1 for “Receipt and review Plaintiff’s ID”, 0.1 to “File both proof of services with Court”, 0.2 for “Receipt and review Court’s Notice of CMC/Calendar all deadlines”, 0.3 to “Draft notice of CMC per Court’s Order”, 0.2 to “Draft notice of posting jury fees”, and 0.5 to “Create table of content[s]/table of authorities for” this fee motion.  (Azimtash Decl., Ex. E.)  Plaintiff also billed an excessive amount of time for another routine task: 1.2 hours drafting four declarations for excess discovery requests (0.3 hours each for two defendants and two types of discovery requests).  (Ibid.)  The court will therefore reduce plaintiff’s lodestar by 2.7 hours.

Plaintiff shall recover 119.4 hours of attorney fees at $470 per hour for a lodestar of $56,118.

Multiplier

Plaintiff moves for a 30% lodestar enhancement.  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.)  After considering all relevant factors, the court finds a lodestar enhancement is not warranted.  This case did not involve novel or difficult questions.  Plaintiff’s counsel 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 claims $1,018.60 in other costs and expenses.  Defendant does not oppose the motion as to those costs.

Disposition

            Plaintiff Yauheni Klimkou’s motion for attorney fees and costs is granted in part.  Plaintiff Yauheni Klimkou shall recover $57,136.60 in attorney fees and other expenses from defendant Porsche Cars North America, Inc.