Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01736, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV01736    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS is CONTINUED; Plaintiff provided the correct audited billing records in reply.  

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs JOHNNY LABARTA and JENNIFER ROSE LABARTA filed suit against Defendant General Motors, LLC for various defects in their leased 2021 Cadillac Escalade.

On December 14, 2022, Defendant filed its answer.

On June 20, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement.

On August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.

On September 4, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition.

On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their reply.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff brings forth the motion pursuant to Civil Code section 1794 subdivision (d). (Motion p. 7.) In turn, the statute provides the following:

If the buyer prevails in an action 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) (emphasis added).)

As for determining the “reasonableness” of attorney costs incurred in fee shifting cases, the inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method which embraces a two-step method. (See also Motion p. 7.)

The first step requires a trial court to multiply the time reasonably spent by Plaintiff counsel on the case by a reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.

The second step allows a trial court to adjust or enhance the lodestar by applying a multiplier to consider the contingent nature and risk associated with the action, as well as other factors, such as degree of skill required, ultimate success achieved, and “extraordinary legal skill.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1130, 1132, 1137; see also Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (Serrano III) [identifies seven factors that a trial court properly considers in its decision to augment the lodestar calculation].) The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include 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 Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 770, 774, emphasis added and underline added).) A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.) The amount of the multiplier lies within the court’s sound discretion. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [“To the extent a trial court is concerned that a particular award is excessive, it has broad discretion to adjust the fee downward or deny an unreasonable fee altogether.”], see also Motion p. 8:11-12.)

After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the award so that it is a reasonable figure.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-96.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court to issue an Order awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of (1) $41,098.32. Such amount consists of a) $32,350.00 in attorney fees and $3,748.32 in recoverable costs and expenses for Consumer Law Experts, P.C.; and reservation for an additional $5,000.00 10 for Plaintiffs counsel to review Defendant's Opposition, draft the Reply brief, and attend the hearing on this issue. (Motion p. 2.) Defendant takes issue with the number of hours Plaintiff’s Counsel devoted to the litigation and the reasonableness of the hourly fee. More specifically, Defendant argues that “[t]he absence of adequate time records and billing statements in this case deprives the Court of the evidence required to support Counsel’s demand. Counsel has failed to provide the Court with a sufficient basis to determine whether their time spent on this matter was both reasonable and reasonably valued at $32,350.00” (Opp. p. 1:14-15.)

However, it appears that Plaintiff inadvertently included only the audited billing records. (Reply p. 1:1-6 [“In the first instance, I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to the Court. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ Motion inadvertently include only the audited billing records for Plaintiffs’ counsel, Julian Moore. I have included the correct audited billing records. (See generally Decl. of Arbre Kornely in Support of Pls.’ Reply, Ex. 1.) Should Defendant or the Court need additional time to review the corrected records, Plaintiffs will not oppose a continuance on the hearing on their Motion for Attorney Fees.”].)

Therefore, the court continues the hearing to allow Defendant to review the supplemental billing. The court will set a briefing schedule at the hearing.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the motion is continued.