Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2019-01077924, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

The motion by plaintiffs Iraj Bereliani (“Iraj”) and Tooraj Bereliani (“Tooraj”) (together “plaintiffs”) for an order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses/costs in their favor and against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“JLRNA”) is GRANTED with reduced fees.

The court awards a total of $107,457.54, comprised of $79,577.13 in total fees ($4,255.13 to the Taylor Law Firm and $75,322 to the Wirtz Law Firm) and $27,880.41 in costs ($1,061.42 to the Taylor Law Firm and $26,818.99 to the Wirtz Law Firm). The court declines to award a multiplier.

Plaintiffs move for a total award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $207,618.66 pursuant to Civil Code §1794 (d) and the settlement agreement entered into between the parties, comprised of $119,825.50 in lodestar fees with a 1.5 multiplier of $59,912.75 and for costs and expenses of $27,880.41.

Civil Code §1794(d) allows a prevailing buyer in an action under this section to recover, as 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 prosecution of such action.” The prevailing buyer seeking fees and costs under this section has the burden of showing they were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.)

The lodestar adjustment method applies to calculating attorney’s fees under this section. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 997). Lodestar is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Id.)

The trial court can consider whether the case was overstaffed, presented unique or complex issues, involved discovery motions, or proceeded to trial. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 37). The trial court is not to rubber stamp an attorney fee request, but instead must determine the number of hours reasonably expended. (Id. at p. 38) Reasonable compensation does not include padding with inefficient or duplicative efforts. (Ibid.) A reduced award may be justified if the case was over litigated, the bill is padded, or the opposing party has valid objections. (Ibid.)

“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, 1009.) The court looks to comparable rates in the forum district. (Ibid.) “The court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate.” (Ibid.)

The court has reviewed and considered the evidence and arguments of the parties along with the number of hours and amounts billed. The court notes that JLRNA did not file a motion to tax costs or otherwise object to any costs requested by either law firm.

Although the court finds that the time billed by the Taylor Law Firm was reasonably incurred and that the billing rates of $595 per hour for Mr. Taylor and $175 per hour for his paralegals were reasonable, the court reduces the total fees requested by the Taylor firm by 25% to account for the necessary duplication of effort that occurs when two law firms litigate the same straightforward case.

Plaintiffs are awarded $4,255.13 in fees and $1,061.42 in costs for the work performed by the Taylor Law Firm.

The court finds JLRNA’s objections to the Wirtz Firm billing have merit.

The court relies on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in finding the following rates to be reasonable for the work performed by the respective individuals at the Wirtz firm: $595 for Mr. Wirtz; $450 for Senior Associates; $400 for junior associates; $175 for senior paralegals and $150 for junior paralegals.

The court also finds evidence of padding, duplicative billing, and overbilling by the Wirtz firm, including but not limited to the following examples: Duplicative billing on 12/17/2019 and 12/19/2019 for review and revise responses to SROGS and on 11/30/2020 for draft/review/revise email to opposing counsel re: taking Hornburg depos off calendar; Overbilling: senior paralegal charges for tasks where there should be no charge or charges at a legal assistant rate such as on 1/2/2020 and 4/15/2020 for bates stamping document production and on 2/4/2020 and 2/6/2020 for phone calls with the court, and on 3/16/2020, 4/21/2020 and 4/24/2020 for downloading and saving documents.

The court also finds that the Wirtz firm overstaffed the case with 7 attorneys and 4 paralegals.  Further this action was a straightforward Song-Beverly action which did not involve any unique or exceptional issues or circumstances and did not go to trial.

Accordingly, the court finds that 200.3 hours were reasonably expended by the Wirtz firm and awards plaintiffs a total of $75,322 in fees attributable to that work along with $26,818.99 in costs and expenses.

All of plaintiff’s Objections to the declaration of Brian Takahashi are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.