Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV03031, Date: 2025-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03031    Hearing Date: February 1, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs NESTOR DANIEL FLORES and JAZMIN ESTAFANIA FLORES (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“GM”) on February 10, 2023.   Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. 

The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows: On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a new 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“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 $2,092.60 and an award of attorney fees in the amount of $58,456.60.

            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 are as follows: (1) Isaac Kohen, Esq.  $525.00 per hour; and  (2) Tamara Imber, Esq. 325.00 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 are as follows: (1) Isaac Kohen, Esq. 92.4 hours; and  (2) Tamara Imber, Esq. 8.4 hours. 

GM claims that the number of hours billed is unreasonable. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys in in this matter are 80 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.   

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 $2,092.60 in costs and expenses. 

Defendant objects to an award of costs for process server costs.  The court finds these costs appropriate.

 Defendant objects to an award of costs for copying, scanning, and postage.  The court finds these costs are not appropriate.  These are overhead costs that are part of Defendant’s attorney’s hourly rate.

The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $1,827.35 in costs and expenses.

D. Conclusion