Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22AHCV00166, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00166 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 03/22/2024 – 8:30am
Case No. 22AHCV00166
Trial Date: N/A
Case Name: AMELIA LOPEZ, an individual; v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1-50
inclusive
[TENTATIVE
RULING– MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES]
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Plaintiff, Amelia Lopez, moves the Court, pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, Civ. Code §1794(d), to issue an Order awarding their attorney
fees in the total amount of $60,732.00, including: (1) $35,488.00
incurred in attorney’s fees plus a 1.5 time multiplier in the additional amount
of $17,744.00; and (2) an additional $5,000 for Plaintiffs’ counsel to review
General Motors LLC’s Opposition, draft the Reply brief, and attend the hearing
on this Motion (though they expect to spend well over ten hours on these) plus
a 1.5 time multiplier in the additional amount of $2,500.00. Plaintiff
also seeks enforcement of the prospective sanctions ordered on May 19, 2023, in
the additional amount of $1,500.00. (See, Declaration of Vanessa J.
Oliva (“Oliva Decl.”), ¶¶48-52, 87.)
This
Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act lawsuit, and under said Act is entitled, by
both agreement and statute, to such a fee award. (Oliva Decl., ¶58.) Indeed,
Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a near maximum recovery in this matter that was
heavily-litigated solely due to Defendant’s obstruct and delay tactics.
This Motion is based on this Notice;
the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the supporting Declaration
of Vanessa J. Oliva; the pleadings and papers on file herein; and on any other
matter that may be presented to the Court at or before the hearing of this
matter.
Procedural
Moving Party: Plaintiff, Amelia Lopez
Responding Party: Defendant, General Motors LLC
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Ok
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Request for Judicial
Notice; Oliva Declaration; Proposed Order
Opposition Papers: Opposition; Quezada Declaration
Reply Papers: Reply; Supplemental Declaration
BACKGROUND
The
instant motion pertains to the Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees based on
being the prevailing party in a Song-Beverly action after settling the dispute
with Defendant.
DISCUSSION
Civil Code § 1794(d)
Under
Civil Code §1794, subdivision (d) the prevailing party in an action that arises
out of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entitled to fees that were
reasonably incurred: “If the buyer prevails under this section, the buyer
shall be allowed by the Court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to
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).)
Here,
there was no dispute as to Plaintiff being the prevailing party due to the
settlement of the case.
General Legal Standard - Lodestar and
Multiplier
The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is
within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22
Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th
1127, 1134.) “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally
‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended
multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee
for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court
based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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….” (Graciano v. Robinson
Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)
In setting the
hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the
rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community
for similar work.’” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.
App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds
by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.) The burden
is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees.
(Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.
App. 4th 603, 615.)
The Court has
broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award
which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a
prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial
evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379,
1393-94.) The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of
attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in
arriving at the
ANALYSIS
Reasonableness of Hourly Rate and Time Expended
Plaintiff requests $35,477.00 in attorney’s fees plus an additional $5,000
for Plaintiff’s counsel to review General Motors LLC’s Opposition, draft the
Reply brief, and attend the hearing on this Motion.
Plaintiff’s
counsel states its hourly rates as follows:
The hourly
rates for attorney Vanessa J. Oliva are: $435.00/hr for early 2022; $465/hr
from June 2022 to June 2023; and $470/hr since June 2023. The hourly rates for
attorney Joe Liu during the pertinent period of 2023 was $475.00/hr. The hourly
rates for attorney Carey Wood are: $500/hr since July 2022.These rates are
appropriate given each attorney’s relative experience and qualifications. (See
Oliva Decl. ¶¶ 63-67.) They are similar to the rates of Los Angeles County and
other relevant courts have awarded some of these attorneys in vehicle defect
cases.
(Pl. Mot. p.9.)
Plaintiff also argues that its
request for 91.3 hours spent is reasonable.
To support its request, Plaintiff
requests judicial notice of Exhibits 3-15, which are orders with fee awards in
other consumer protection recovery cases in Southern California, and Exhibit
16, which is excerpts of the United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey
Report for 2017-2018.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff
should not recover more than $10,847.50 in fees. Defendant points to its
summary of reductions on page 10 of the opposition. Defendant also points to
issues it had with Plaintiff’s billing on pages 7-9 of its Opposition. Further,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff propounded recycled discovery templates and
templated motions.
In Reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant
did not challenge Plaintiff’s counsel’s billable rate. Plaintiff also argues
that Defendant presented inaccuracies as to the time incurred by Plaintiff.
Multiplier
The
lodestar amount “may be adjusted by the court 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, [and] (4) the contingent nature of
the fee award.”¿ (Bernardi¿v. County of Monterey¿(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th
1379, 1399 [citing Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132].)¿ The
purpose of any lodestar and the increase thereto “is intended to approximate
market-level compensation for such services” and is entirely discretionary.¿
(Id.)¿ “The purpose of a fee enhancement is not to reward attorneys for
litigating certain kinds of cases, but to fix a reasonable fee in a particular
action.”¿ (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie¿(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128,
1171-72.)
“The trial court is neither foreclosed from, nor
required to, award a multiplier.” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC
(2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 citing Montgomery v. Bio-Med Specialties,
Inc. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1297.)
Here, Plaintiff requests a multiplier of 1.50, or
$20,244.00, including the multiplier on anticipated Reply and appearance time.
Opposition argues a multiplier is not warranted because
counsel has not satisfied three elements to support any enhancement.
Enforcement of sanctions
Plaintiff
also seeks enforcement of the prospective sanctions ordered on May 19, 2023, in
the additional amount of $1,500.00.
Plaintiff mentions this request in its notice of
motion, but Plaintiff does not explain the legal basis or authority to do this
in its memorandum. The Opposition does not address this additional request.
Plaintiff points out in Reply how the Defendant did not address this issue in
its Opposition.
The Court will hear argument as it has concerns as to
whether it is proper for Plaintiff to request these sanctions related to a
prior discovery motion in a motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff points to no
authority as to its legal basis for doing this.
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court will hear argument from counsel. The amount sought by plaintiffs seems somewhat
high for this Song-Beverly matter, but the amount suggested by defendant seems
much too low. The Court will discuss the
issue with counsel.
Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are granted.