Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV18633, Date: 2024-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18633    Hearing Date: December 27, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Almanza vs. FCA US LLC, et. al., Case No. 23STCV18633

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Naomi K. Almanza (Plaintiff) moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $52,350 and costs in the amount of $3,314.98 against FCA US LLC and Fab4 LLC (Defendants). The Court grants Plaintiff an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $41,232.48.

“[A]s a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as costs unless they are authorized by statute or agreement.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.) 

“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The court may determine fees pursuant to the section upon notice and motion by a party. The party prevailing on the contract is that “who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (Id., § 1717, subd. (b)(1).) The court may also determine that there is no prevailing party.

The attorney bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5).) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) “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.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488.)

In determining whether the requested attorney’s fees are “reasonable,” the Court’s “first step involves the lodestar figure—a calculation based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the lawyer’s hourly rate. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of facts specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2008) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 92.) In determining whether to adjust the lodestar figure, the Court may consider the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (EnPalm LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774.)

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $52,350 and costs in the amount of $3,314.98 against Defendants. Plaintiff is the prevailing party for the purposes of this fee motion under a settlement agreement entered into by Defendants. (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 26.) Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff is entitled to fees; rather, Defendants argue that the rates and hours claimed by Plaintiff are unreasonable. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claimed rates are unreasonable but not Plaintiff’s claimed hourly totals.

Reasonableness of Rates 

            Requested rates are reasonable if they are “within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable work.” (Children’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783 (Bonta).) The Court may consider the sworn declarations of attorneys regarding their customary fees, hourly rate determinations in other cases, and the prevailing fees in the community as evidence of the reasonable market rate. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel requests rates between $695 and $250 for attorneys of varying levels of experience. (Saeedian Decl. ¶¶ 3–7.) Defendants argue that the Court should instead apply rates from the 2023 Real Rate Report, capping senior attorney rates at $495 per hour and associate attorney rates at $295 per hour. The Court finds a $695 hourly rate in a rudimentary lemon law case to be unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court will use Defendants’ suggested rates of $495 for all senior attorneys, $295 for all associates, and $150 for paralegal and clerical work.

Reasonableness of Hours 

            Plaintiff alleges 4.9 hours billed by Senior Attorney Michael Saeedian, 47.6 hours billed by Senior Attorney Adina Ostoia, 7.5 hours billed by Senior Attorney Christopher Urner, 12.5 hours billed by Jorge L. Acosta as an associate and 22.3 hours billed as a law clerk, and 7.9 hours billed by paralegal Evelyn Ghazarian. (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 29.)

Defendants challenge several of Plaintiff’s billing entries, including the following: (1) 4.9 hours for database research; (2) multiple entries regarding hours billed for review of service records; (3) multiple hours billed for the drafting of a repair chronology; (4) hours billed regarding discovery requests; (5) hours billed to analyze responses to discovery requests; (6) hours billed to calculate repurchase amounts; and (7) hours billed for the drafting the present motion and its reply. However, the Court finds these hourly totals reasonable and well-documented, including those necessary for the drafting of the present motion and accompanying declaration, which is not entirely boilerplate.

Accordingly, the Court awards $37,917.50 in attorney’s fees and costs to Defendant ([4.9 hours] x [$495 per hour] + [47.6 hours] x [$495 per hour] + [7.5 hours] x [$495 per hour] + [12.5 hours] x [$295 per hour] + [22.3 hours] x [$150 per hour] + [7.9 hours] x [$150 per hour] + [$3,314.98 in costs] = [$41,232.48])