Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV06114, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06114 Hearing Date: May 17, 2024 Dept: 32
|
Maria
del rocia ascencio, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; et
al., Defendants.
|
Case No.:
22STCV06114 Hearing Date: May 17, 2024 order RE: plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees |
|
|
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Maria del rocia ascencio (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action
against Defendants GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“GM”) on February 17, 2022. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act.
The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as
follows: On April 25, 2021, Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Chevrolet Sonic (“Vehicle”)
manufactured by GM. During the warranty
period the vehicle developed defects.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Attorney’s fees are mandatory to the
prevailing plaintiff under the Song-Beverly Act. (Kim v.Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery
(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 170, 178; Drouin
v. Fleetwood Enterprises (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 486, 493. Pursuant to California
Civil Code, Section 1780(e) : “[t]he court shall award court costs and
attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this
section.” A prevailing plaintiff is someone who has obtained a net monetary
recovery on a Song-Beverly Act. (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.
(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 150.)
“The
verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are
entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are
erroneous.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005)
132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.) If the motion
is supported by evidence, the opposing party must respond with specific
evidence showing that the fees are unreasonable. (Premier
Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
550, 560-63.) The Court has discretion
to reduce fees that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time. (Horsford,
supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 395.)
In determining a reasonable attorney fee,
the trial court begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably
expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (Warren
v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 36.) The lodestar may then be adjusted based on
factors specific to the case in order to fix the fee at the fair market value
of the legal services provided. (Ibid.)
These facts include (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which
the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4)
the contingent nature of the fee award.
(Ibid.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves for an award of costs
in the amount of $3,684.90 and an award of attorney fees in the amount of $36,835.50,
which includes anticipated fees of $2,490.00.
A.
Entitlement to Attorney Fees
The parties formally agreed to resolve
this action and Defendant stipulated that Plaintiff would be the “prevailing
party” so that Plaintiff could seek attorney’s fees and costs by motion. As such, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in
this action, and as prevailing party in this action, Plaintiff is entitled to a
reasonable amount of attorney fees. The issue to be addressed is the
reasonableness of the requested amount of attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
B.
Reasonableness of Fees
1.
Reasonable Hourly Rates
The hourly rates claimed by Plaintiff’s attorneys
and paralegals are as follows: (1) Jessica Anvar
$515.00 per hour; (2) Benjeman Beck $490.00 per hour; (3) Matt Xie $385.00 per
hour; (4) Nancy Zang $515.00 per hour; (5) Jordan Cohen $510.00 per hour; (6)
Iraida Gonzalez $415.00 per hour; (7) David Gomez $175.00 per hour; (8) Daisy
Hernandez $225.00 per hour; and (9) Richard Ruiz $175.00 per hour.
“In determining hourly rates, the court
must look to the ‘prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’” (Heritage
Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 100.) In making this determination, “[t]he court
may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market.” (Ibid.)
The Court finds that $400.00 per hour is
the reasonable hourly rate in this case.
2.
Hours Reasonably Expended
The total number of billable hours claimed
by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals are as follows: (1) Jessica Anvar 3.2 hours; (2) Benjeman
Beck 2.5 hours; (3) Matt Xie 32.1 hours; (4) Nancy Zang 1.3 hours; (5) Jordan
Cohen 0.9 hours; (6) Iraida Gonzalez 39.2 hours; (7) David Gomez 6.3 hours; (8)
Daisy Hernandez 0.4 hours; and (9) Richard Ruiz 3.0 hours.
GM claims that the number of hours billed
is unreasonable.
The Court finds that the reasonable hours
spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals in in this matter are 73 hours.
In making this determination, the court
found that plaintiff’s counsel inappropriately billed for some clerical tasks
and that some of the billing was excessive, especially for attorneys as
experienced as plaintiff’s counsel. While plaintiff has the right to have
multiple attorneys, the court finds that some of the attorneys’ work was
duplicative and redundant.
C.
Multiplier
Plaintiff requested a lodestar multiplier
enhancement.
The
Court finds that an upward adjustment to the lodestar is not warranted in this
action. This was a straightforward lemon law case. There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel
was precluded from taking other cases. A downward adjustment to the lodestar is
not warranted either as Plaintiff’s counsel took this case as a contingency.
D.
Entitlement and Reasonableness of Costs
Plaintiff requests a total of $3,684.90 in costs and expenses.
Defendant objects to an award of costs for
jury fees of $150.00. The court finds
these costs appropriate.
Defendant
objects to an award of costs for reporter fees of $1,123.56. The court finds these costs appropriate.
Defendant objects to an award of costs for
courtesy copy delivery of $136.70.
Courtesy copies were of assistance to the court, and the court finds
these costs appropriate.
The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of $924.20 in costs and expenses.
//
//
//
//
D.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED. The Court awards $29,200.00 in attorney fees and
$3,684.90 in costs and expenses.