Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: BC654811, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC654811 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: 72
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Date: 2/23/23
(9:30 AM)
Case: Brandon Crayton v. FCA US LLC
(BC654811)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Brandon Crayton’s Motion for Attorney Fees is
GRANTED IN PART.
All evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s
requests for judicial notice are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). The Court notes, however, that the trial court
rulings are not binding on this Court.
Plaintiff Brandon Crayton moves for an award of attorney fees
in the amount of $330,906.12. The fee request is based on the following:
(1)
$98,472.00 in
fees for Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”)
(2)
$93,217.50 in
fees for Rosner, Barry, & Babbitt, LLP (“RBB”)
(3)
$46,205.00 in
fees for Greines, Martin, Stein, & Richland (“GMSR”)
(4)
A 1.35
multiplier on the attorney fees ($83,281.98)
(5)
$6,175.64 in
costs and expenses
(6)
$3,500.00 for
review of the opposition, preparing the reply, and attending the hearing for
the instant motion
As a preliminary
matter, the billings that RBB provided in support of its fee request add up to $93,271.50,
not $93,217.50. (Escalante Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 1; Shahian Decl. ¶ 67 & Ex.
33.) In any event, RBB, as well as SLP and GMSR, are awarded lower fees than
requested, for the reasons stated below.
After remittitur
was issued, defendant FCA US LLC accepted a CCP § 998 offer in the amount of
$99,453.80. (Rabieian Decl. ¶ 100 & Ex. 9.) Defendant also agreed to pay
plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and expenses in an amount to be determined by
noticed motion. (Id.) Accordingly, plaintiff is allowed under
Civil Code § 1794(d) to recover as part of the judgment a sum to cover attorney
fees based on actual time expended and costs, and determined by the Court to
have been reasonably incurred by the lessor in connection with the commencement
and prosecution of this action.
The Court finds that, based on its experience, the hourly
rates claimed by counsel and paralegals, ranging from $125 to $675, are
reasonable. (Shahian Decl. ¶¶ 39-64; Shahian Decl. ¶ 67 & Ex. 33 at ¶¶ 9-12;
Escalante Decl. ¶¶ 2-5, 8, 11, 12; Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009 [“The court may rely on its own knowledge and
familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate”].)
SLP claims
$98,472.00 in fees. $15,771.50 was incurred before defendant admitted that
plaintiff was entitled to repurchase or replacement in the Amended Answer filed
on January 19, 2018. (Shahian Decl. ¶ 66 & Ex. 32; Rabieian Decl. ¶ 25.) Before
the filing of the Amended Answer, defendant denied liability. (Rabieian Decl. ¶
16; 4/28/17 Answer.) Because defendant eventually admitted liability, the Court
finds that SLP prevailed as to the litigation prior to January 19, 2018. SLP is
entitled to the entirety of its fees that it earned before defendant admitted liability.
With respect to the
fees claimed for the period after defendant admitted liability, the Court examines
the extent to which plaintiff realized his litigation objectives to determine
whether plaintiff’s claimed fees are reasonable. (MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047-48.) “‘The trial court makes its
determination [of reasonable attorney fees] after consideration of a number of
factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount
involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention
given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.’
[Citation.]” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.)
After defendant
filed its Amended Answer, the litigation centered on what damages plaintiff
could recover. The parties disputed whether plaintiff was entitled to residual
value, registration renewal fees, or insurance premiums. On October 22,
2018, after a bench trial, the Court (Hon. Michael P. Linfield) entered
judgment. The Court found that plaintiff may not recover any amount for
residual value, registration renewal fees, or insurance premiums. (Rabieian
Decl. ¶ 53 & Ex. 4.) The Court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff
$86,953.80, including restitution of $28,984.60 and a civil penalty of
$57,969.20. (Id.)
Plaintiff appealed. On March 30, 2021, the Court of Appeal
affirmed the judgment with respect to the issue of residual value but reversed
the judgment with respect to the registration renewal fees and insurance
premiums. (Crayton v. FCA US LLC (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 194, 210.)
Plaintiff filed a petition for review and request for depublication with the
California Supreme Court. (Tobisman Decl. ¶ 14.) The California Supreme Court
denied plaintiff any relief.
With respect to the $46,205.00
sought by GMSR, these fees are sought solely for work preparing the petition
for review and request for depublication that were filed with the California
Supreme Court. (Tobisman Decl. ¶ 11 & Ex. A.) Plaintiff was wholly
unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought. (Rabieian Decl. ¶¶ 91, 92; see
also Rogerson Decl. ¶¶ 11, 15 & Exs. F, J.) Plaintiff’s complete
failure inn achieving his litigation objective with the California Supreme
Court is reflective of the fact that such efforts and accompanying fees in
furtherance thereof were not reasonable.
The Court does not award any fees for the work performed by GMSR.
This leaves a
remainder of $82,700.50 sought by SLP and $93,271.50 sought by RBB, totaling $175,972.00,
for obtaining and appealing the judgment, as well as drafting the instant
motion for attorney fees. After reviewing the briefs filed for the trial, as
well as the Court of Appeal opinion, the Court finds that plaintiff’s primary
litigation objective during trial and appeal was to have the residual value of
the subject vehicle included in plaintiff’s damages. For example, in the bench
brief filed on May 10, 2018, plaintiff focused on why the “lease payoff amount”
was recoverable. (See Crayton, 63 Cal.App.5th at 201 [“In his trial
brief, plaintiff argued that he was entitled to recover, among other amounts,
the amount necessary for defendant to reacquire the vehicle, i.e., the residual
value, as restitution”].) Plaintiff did not discuss whether registration
renewal fees and insurance premiums were recoverable. By contrast, in
defendant’s trial brief filed on May 11, 2018, defendant argued, among other
things, that registration renewal fees and insurance premiums were not
recoverable. (See ibid. [“Finally, defendant asserted that registration
renewal fees, insurance premiums, and amounts paid for dealer options were not
recoverable as damages under the Act”].) In plaintiff’s reply to defendant’s
trial brief filed on May 17, 2018, plaintiff dedicated little more than one
page to the issue of registration renewal fees and insurance premiums and a
paragraph of 11 lines regarding the non-manufacture items, which was not at
issue on appeal. Consistent with residual value being plaintiff’s primary litigation
objective, the remainder of plaintiff’s 10-page reply was dedicated to that
issue.
Thus, while
plaintiff prevailed on the issue of registration renewal fees and insurance
premiums, plaintiff lost on the issue on which he almost exclusively focused—whether
plaintiff could recover residual value as part of restitution. Accordingly, based
on plaintiff’s lack of success on the most important issue to him, the Court
finds that SLP and RBB is not entitled to the entirety of the fees that they
seek for work after the filing of the Amended Answer, as such fees were not
reasonably incurred.
Nevertheless, the
Court recognizes that plaintiff obtained a $86,953.80 monetary award in the October
22, 2018 judgment. The Court also recognizes that plaintiff obtained a monetary
settlement of $99,453.80, which exceeded the amount in the judgment, after
remittitur was issued. The Court also recognizes that plaintiff prevailed on
the issue of whether registration renewal fees and insurance premiums were
recoverable as restitution under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
The Court notes
that, although Judge Linfield ruled on a prior motion for attorney fees, the
Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider in
light of any increased total recovery. (Crayton, 63 Cal.App.5th at 210.)
Accordingly, upon consideration of all the circumstances in this action, in
particular the issues on which plaintiff did and did not prevail, and after
reviewing the billing records from SLP and RBB (Shahian Decl. ¶¶ 66, 67 &
Exs. 32, 33; Escalante Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 1), the Court finds that out of the $175,972.00
that SLP and RBB seek for work after defendant admitted liability, $71,000 was
reasonably earned. The Court also awards $2,500, as opposed to $3,500, as
reasonable fees associated with the review of the opposition, preparation of
the reply, and attendance at the hearing for the instant motion.
Based on the foregoing,
plaintiff’s request for $241,394.50 in fees is reduced to $89,271.50 ($15,771.50 pre-Amended Answer + $71,000.00
post-Amended Answer + $2,500.00 post-filing of instant motion).
A multiplier is not
warranted. Although counsel represented
plaintiff on a contingency basis, plaintiff’s lack of success concerning the
residual value issue militates against awarding a multiplier. (Weeks v.
Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1172, fn. 21 [factors to
consider in deciding whether to adjust lodestar].) Simply put, the Court finds
that the lodestar awarded as set forth above sufficiently compensates counsel
for the work performed in this action.
Costs sought are awarded as
requested in the sum of $6,175.64.
Plaintiff is not entitled to post-judgment interest because
judgment has not been entered.
The motion is GRANTED
IN PART. Using the appropriate lodestar approach, and based on the foregoing
findings and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that
the total and reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs incurred for the
work performed in connection with this action is $95,447.14 ($89,271.50 fees + $6,175.64
costs).
Such fees and costs are awarded to plaintiff Brandon Crayton
against defendant FCA US LLC.