Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Lopez vs. FCA US, LLC", Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs Linda Lopez and Felipe Lopez’s (“Plaintiffs” together) Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in part and CONTINUED in part.
Under the SBA:
“(d) 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.
(e)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, if the buyer establishes a violation of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, the buyer shall recover damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and may recover a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of damages.” (Civ. Code § 1794(d) and (e).)
“The starting point of every fee award, once it is recognized that the court's role in equity is to provide just compensation for the attorney, must be a calculation of the attorney's services in terms of the time he has expended on the case. Anchoring the analysis to this concept is the only way of approaching the problem that can claim objectivity, a claim which is obviously vital to the prestige of the bar and the courts.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.)
“The lodestar adjustment method requires the trial court first to determine a touchstone or lodestar figure based on actual time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney. [Citation.] “The touchstone figure may then be augmented or diminished by taking various relevant factors into account, including (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; and (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, based on the uncertainty of [] prevailing on the merits and of establishing eligibility for the award.” [Citation.] For Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims, “[a] prevailing buyer has the burden of ‘showing that the fees incurred were “allowable,” were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” and were “reasonable in amount.” ’ ”’” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 998.)
Plaintiffs settled this matter with Defendants for a sum of $35,000 to Plaintiffs in addition to attorney fees, costs, and expenses. (Mkrdech Decl., Ex. 4.) Plaintiffs request 1) base attorney fees in the amount of $62,591.71; 2) a 0.35 multiplier on the base fees for $21,907.10 in additional attorney fees, 3) costs and expenses totaling $5,675.94; and $3,500 on fees for this Motion, for a total award of $93,674.75.
The court has reviewed the entirety of the billing entries submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel and finds that there is no obvious evidence of attorney “padding,” overbilling, or double billing by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal. App. 5th 24, 38-39.) Even though there were a large number of attorneys working on this matter, the entries appear to be for billing for individual acts versus multiple attorneys billing for the same item. The hours expended appear to be reasonable and necessary for the resolution of this case. Although some of the attorney hourly billing rates are at the high end, they are not so unreasonable that the court should decrease them. The court grants the request for the base $62,591.71 requested attorney fees.
The court finds this case was not particularly complex in nature, there was not an inordinate amount of litigation necessary to resolve the matter, and the matter did not go to trial. The court finds the requested multiplier unnecessary in this instance and denies the request for $21,907.10 in multiplied fees.
While there was undoubtably fees incurred in the preparation of this Motion, Plaintiffs provided no breakdown of the requested $3,500 in fees. The court finds the amount to be on the high side and will instead lower the amount to a more reasonable $1,750.
The total attorney fees awarded in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants is $64,341.71.
As for the costs and expenses, the court notes Plaintiffs failed to file either a Memorandum of Costs or any evidence supporting the requested $5,675.94. The court will continue the hearing as to these issues to 11/14/22. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a supplemental brief with evidence regarding the costs and expenses, no later than 10/17/22. Defendants may file an opposition no later than 10/24/22. Plaintiffs may filed a reply brief if necessary no later than 10/31/22. All supplemental briefs may be no longer than 6 pages, not including evidence.
The OSC RE: Dismissal of Settled Case is also continued to 11/14/22, at 9:30 a.m..
Plaintiffs to give notice.