Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV23872, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23872    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Thomas Jones’ and Ilana Jones’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is granted in the total reduced amount of $90,580.24, comprised of $85,435.00 in attorneys’ fees and $5,145.24 in costs.

Plaintiffs Thomas Jones (“Thomas”) and Ilana Jones (“Ilana”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an order awarding their attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to a signed settlement offer with Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“JLRNA”) (“Defendant”) in the total amount of $131,001.37, comprised of (1) $71,270.00 in attorney fees for Quill & Arrow, LLP (“QA”); (2) $16,965.00 in attorney fees for West Point Legal, LLP (“WPL”); (3) a 1.35 multiplier enhancement on the attorney fees (or $30,882.25); (4) $5,145.24 in costs incurred by QA; (5) $738.88 in costs incurred by WPL; and (6) an additional $6,000.00 for Plaintiffs’ counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition, draft the Reply, and attend the hearing on this Motion.  (Notice of Motion, pg. ii; Civ. Code §1794(d).) 

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs’ 4/25/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Theodore Dorenkamp III (“Dorenkamp”) are overruled as to No. 1, and sustained as to Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Plaintiffs’ 4/25/24 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Bryan Reynolds (“Reynolds”) are overruled as to Nos. 2 and 4 and sustained as to Nos. 1 and 3.

Background

This is a lemon law action brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”).  On March 31, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement for restitution in the amount of $40,000.00, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, to be determined by Motion.  (See Decl. of Sogoyan ¶41.)

On January 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for attorneys’ fees.  Defendant filed its opposition on April 22, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed their reply on April 25, 2024.

Discussion

Civil Code §1794(d) provides that a buyer who prevails in an action under that section, “shall be allowed by the court to recover as a 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 the prosecution of such action.”

Here, Plaintiffs are the prevailing party per parties’ Settlement Agreement and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.  (See Motion, pg. 8.)  Defendant does not contest that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party.

Reasonable Fees

To calculate a lodestar amount, the Court must first determine the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought by the Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Supreme Court of California has concluded that a reasonable hourly lodestar rate is the prevailing rate for private attorneys “conducting non-contingent litigation of the same type.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133, emphasis added.)

Kevin Jacobson declares the following hourly rates for attorneys of QA: (1) Kevin Jacobson (2021 through 2023 rate of $500/hr); (2) Gregory Sogoyan (2022 rate of $450/hr, 2023 rate of $500/hr, and 2024 rate of $525/hr.); (3) Sarah Pfeffer (2022 rate of $350/hr.); (4) Nicholas Yowarski (2021 rate of $350/hr.); (5) Athena Nguyen (2021 rate of $300/hr.); (6) Leon Tao (2021 rate of 300/hr.); (7) Harry Terzian (2023 rate of $350/hr.); (8) Siyun Yang (2023 rate of $350/hr.); and (9) Kristin Messih (2022 rate of $350/hr.). These rates are appropriate given the relative experience and qualifications of these attorneys. (See Decl. of Jacobson ¶¶3-30, Exhs. 1-10.)  Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated their counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable in their community of practice in their specialized area of law.

Defendant challenges Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rates as excessive.  (Opposition, pgs. 8-10.)  Defendant argues the declarations of Kevin Jacobson and Brian Altman fail to demonstrate that plaintiffs request reasonable rates for their attorneys.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel’s rates to be reasonable and do not warrant reductions.

Billed Hours

The party seeking fees and costs bears the burden to show “the fees incurred were allowable, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount.”  (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee recovery is based on the 184 hours spent by their counsel litigating this case through this motion.  (Decl. of Jacobson ¶31, Exh. 11; Decl. of Altman ¶¶17-18, Exh. E.)  Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billed hours were overbilled for using form pleadings, unreasonable for a sanctionable failure to produce the Subject Vehicle, and inefficient because two law firms represented Plaintiffs.  (Opposition, pgs. 6-8.)  The Court has reviewed Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billed hours finds most of them to be unavailing.

First, Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs using form pleadings is not well taken. Plaintiffs’ counsel should not be penalized for using techniques to reduce the amount of time to draft motions. 

Second, Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ 8.3 hours billed in connection to Defendant’s request for inspect the Subject Vehicle is well taken on account of Plaintiffs’ failure to produce the Vehicle and this Court granting Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiffs on Defendants’ motion to compel compliance.  (2/27/23 Minute Order.)  Plaintiffs do not argue this issue in their reply, thereby conceding such billed hours were not reasonably incurred.  Therefore, the Court reduces Plaintiffs’ request by 8.3 hours, or $2,800.00.

Finally, Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ retention of two law firms as inefficient is unavailing, as trial counsel appeared at the final status conference, and further, Defendant fails to meet its burden to demonstrate such inefficiency by the retention of two law firms.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is granted in the reduced amount of $85,435.00.

Final Lodestar Determination

The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for a 1.35 lodestar multiplier.  Given the routine work done in this case and the results obtained in this lemon law area, a multiplier is not appropriate. Any contingency risk factor is already accounted for in the hourly rates, which the Court has found to be reasonable.

Costs

Plaintiffs did not submit a memorandum of costs, but instead requested in their motion a total of $5,145.24 in litigation costs and expenses.  (Decl. of Jacobson ¶¶13-24, Exh. 11.)  Defendant’s argument in opposition is silent as to objections to Plaintiffs’ request for costs, but rather incorporates by reference a spreadsheet attached to counsel’s declaration.  Defendant’s failure to provide a substantive argument in its legal analysis demonstrates a concession to any such objection; attaching a declaration with exhibits to supplement an argument within the opposition would be more in line with Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, however, Defendant fails to meet its burden to do so.  (See Opposition, pg. 4, citing to Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 30.)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for costs is granted in the total amount of $5,145.24.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is granted in the reduced amount of $85,435.00.  Plaintiffs’ request for costs is granted in the amount of $5,145.24.  Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in the reduced total amount of $90,580.24.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  May _____, 2024