Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV10589, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10589    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Roberto ChaveFredrick Young (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on May 11, 2023.   Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Song-Beverly Act. 

The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows: On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 2019 Ford Explorer (“Vehicle”) manufactured by Ford.   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 $5,522.87 and an award of attorney fees in the amount of $39,875.00.

            A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees

The Offer to Compromise accepted by Plaintiff on February 1, 2024.  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 as follows: (1) Davd Barry $675.00 per hour; (2) Elizabeth Quinn $600.00 per hour; (3) Debora Rabieian $500.00 per hour; and (4) Logan Pascal $400 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 for Plaintiff’s attorneys.   

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The total number of billable hours claimed by Plaintiff’s attorneys are as follows:  (1) Davd Barry 11.0 hours; (2) Elizabeth Quinn 11.3 hour; (3) Debora Rabieian 4.5 hours; and (4) Logan Pascal 38.7 hour.

Ford claims that the number of hours billed is unreasonable. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys on this matter is  58 hours.

In making this determination, the court found 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 $5,522.87 in costs and expenses.   Ford does not object to these costs.  As such, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $5,522.87 in costs and expenses.

D. Conclusion