Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV399407, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

        All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    


            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 

Case Number: 21STCV399407    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Eileen Vines’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is granted in the total reduced amount of $142,908.79.  Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees are comprised of $127,759.50 in fees and $5,000 in additional fees incurred on instant motion.  Plaintiff’s costs are granted in the total amount of $10,149.29. 

Plaintiff Eileen Vines (“Vines”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order awarding her a total of $187,624.62  in attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses against Defendant American Honda Motor Co. (“AHM”) (“Defendant”), consisting of (1) $127,759.50 in attorney fees for Strategic Legal Practices, APC (“SLP”); (2) a 1.35 multiplier enhancement on the attorney fees (or $44,715.83); (3) $10,149.29 in costs and expenses for SLP; and (4) an additional $5,000.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition, draft the Reply, and attend the hearing on this Motion (though counsel expects to incur over $5,000.00 in fees on these tasks). (Notice of Amended Motion, pg. 1; Civ. Code §§1794(d), 998.) 

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s 4/4/25 evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Monica Y. Hernandez (“Hernandez”) are sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s 10/1/24 request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1-22 is denied as irrelevant.

Background

This is a lemon law action brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”).  Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s C.C.P. §998 offer of compromise (“998 Offer”) on February 28, 2024, in the amount of $90,000.00 plus attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses by motion.  (Decl. of Baker ¶85, Exh. 9 at pg. 2.) 

On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for attorneys’ fees.  On December 26, 2024, Defendant filed its opposition.  On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed her reply.

On October 24, 2024, this Court denied the parties’ joint stipulation to set aside this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice on August 15, 2024, pursuant to C.C.P. §583.410 and CRC, Rule 3.1385(b).

On January 9, 2025, this Court heard argument and took the instant matter under submission.  On January 10, 2025, the Court continued the instant motion to April 11, 2025, allowing for Defendant to file a timely substantive opposition.

Defendant filed its opposition on March 28, 2025.  Plaintiff filed a reply on April 4, 2025.

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s opposition was not timely served on her counsel; Defendant served Plaintiff’s counsel on April 1, 2025.  The Court in its discretion will consider Defendant’s opposition.

Discussion

Under Song-Beverly, a buyer who prevails in their action is entitled to an award “as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual lime 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).)

Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party per parties’ 998 Statutory Offer to Compromise and is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.  (Decl. of Baker ¶85, Exh. 9 at pg. 2.)

Reasonable Fees

To calculate a lodestar amount, the Court must first determine the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought by the Plaintiff’s 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.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel declares the following hourly rates of the attorneys who worked on this case: (1) Abdul Shahid ($350.00/hour); (2) Mani Arabi ($495.00-$525.00/hour); (3) Nadine Aslaadi ($375.00/hour); (4) Olivia Avelino ($595.00/hour); (5) Angel M. Baker ($595.00/hour); (6) David Berschauer ($520.00/hour); (7) Tionna Carvalho ($450.00-$595.00/hour); (8) Mark Gibson ($475.00/hour); (9) Jared Kaye ($395.00/hour); (10) Elizabeth Larocque ($595.00/hour); (11) Regina Liou ($475.00/hour); (12) Jami Littles ($595.00/hour); (13) David Lunn ($620.00/hour); (14) Ian McCallister ($595.00/hour); (15) Rebecca Neubauer ($435.00-$495.00/hour); (16) Alexus Ringstad ($350.00/hour); Ezra Ryu ($385.00/hour); (17) Nino Sanaia ($385.00-$425.00/hour); (18) Tyson Smith ($460.00/hour); (19) Hannah Theophil ($360.00/hour); (20) Rabiya Tirmizi ($360.00-$375.00/hour); (21) Anna Weiser ($525.00/hour); and (22) Gregory Yu ($625.00/hour).  (Decl. of Shahian ¶¶49-100.)  These rates are appropriate given each attorney’s relative experience and qualifications.  (See id.)  Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated his counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable in their community of practice in their specialized area of law.

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.)

Plaintiff’s fee recovery is based on the 267.5 hours spent by her attorneys litigating this case over several years.  (See Decl. of Shahian ¶102, Exh. 23.)  Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s billed fees on the basis they are excessive.  (Opposition, pg. 7.)  The Court will address these specific arguments in turn:[1]

First, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s counsel billed an excessive amount of hours for drafting various replies in connection to their discovery motions, and that between two attorneys and three rounds of drafting, Plaintiff’s counsel billed 25.8 hours and $13,077.50 to draft a reply in support of their Motion to Compel Compliance.  Defendant’s argument is well taken, however, Defendant’s citation to “Entries 154, 156, and 158 in Ex A. to Hernandez Decl.” is of no assistance to this Court to determine the specific billing entries it challenges.  Because Defendant cannot identify and refer to Plaintiff’s billing records by date which specific fees are challenged, the Court cannot determine the fees to be reduced and in the appropriate amount.

Second, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request for $16,126.50 in fees to draft the instant motion, review the opposition, draft a reply, and attend the hearing on the instant motion is not well taken, particularly in light of the second round of briefings and appearances before this Court.  Accordingly, Defendant’s challenge to these fees is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is granted in the total amount of $127,759.50.

Multiplier

          Plaintiff requests a 1.35 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

The California legislature intended the word “expenses” in Song-Beverly to cover outlays not included in the detailed statutory definition of “costs,” and the legislative history of Song-Beverly further demonstrates that the legislature exercised its power to permit the recovery by prevailing buyers of a host of litigation expenditures.  (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138.)  “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.  On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.”  (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

Any effort to tax or strike costs must occur in the form of a motion to strike or to tax costs and must be served and filed fifteen (15) days after service of the cost memorandum.  (CRC, Rule 3.1700(b)(1).)  After the 15-day deadline to file a motion to tax costs has passed, the Court clerk must immediately enter the costs. (CRC, Rule 3.1700(b)(4).)

Here, Plaintiff submitted his Memorandum of Costs on September 30, 2024.  Defendant did not file a motion to tax costs.  Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to the costs included in her Memorandum of Costs.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to costs in the total amount of $10,149.29.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is granted in the total reduced amount of $142,908.79. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is granted the total reduced amount of $132,759.50, comprised of $127,759.50 in fees and $5,000 in additional fees incurred on instant motion.  Plaintiff’s costs are granted in the total amount of $10,149.29. 

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  April _____, 2025