Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 19STCV32795, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV32795    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 68

Milton Rodriguez, et al. vs. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al., 19STCV32795

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

Moving Parties – Plaintiffs Milton Rodriguez and Maria Rodriguez

Responding Party – Defendant Volvo Car USA, LLC

Moving Party’s Position

            This is a lemon law case that the parties settled in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $78,000. As the prevailing party, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Plaintiffs filed this motion pursuant to Civ. Code § 1794(d). Volvo agreed to pay attorneys’ fees in the settlement agreement.

            Plaintiffs are requesting $88,377.00 in attorneys’ fees for Strategic Legal Practices (SLP); $7,070.00 for CCA; a 1.35 multiplier enhancement amounting to $33,406.45; and $3,500.00 for reviewing the opposition, drafting a reply, and attending the hearing. Plaintiffs argue that the attorneys’ fees that they have requested are reasonable and compensable. They also argue that the billing rate of their attorneys is reasonable and that the 204.20 hours spent on the litigation is reasonable. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the multiplier enhancement is reasonable because Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained an excellent outcome, the risks posed by the litigation were substantial, and the delay of payment justifies a multiplier.

            Plaintiffs have also requested costs as part of this motion.

Opposing Party’s Position

            Volvo argues that the Court should use its discretion to reduce the fees requested by Plaintiffs. Volvo argues that many of the time entries are duplicative and that Plaintiffs used vague billing descriptions and block billing. Volvo also argues that Plaintiffs cannot recover fees incurred in the prosecution of the fraud claim. It also argues that the hourly rates are excessive and that the Court should not apply a multiplier. Finally, Volvo argues that SLP over-litigated a lemon law case. Volvo argues that the Court should reduce Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees to $29,015.00 for SLP and $1,120.00 for CCA.

Reply

            Plaintiffs’ reply only addresses some of Volvo’s arguments because Plaintiffs argue that Volvo’s opposition exceeded the page limit, so they would only address the arguments up to the page limit. Plaintiffs argue that their attorneys’ hourly rates were reasonable and that the time was reasonably incurred. Finally, they argue that the multiplier enhancement is warranted because the case has been going on for four years.

Analysis

            A prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (See CCP § 1033.5(a)(10); Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).) “To ‘incur’ a fee, of course, is to “become liable” for it [citation omitted], i.e., to become obligated to pay it.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 280.)

            Plaintiffs’ request for $88,377.00 in attorney’s fees is based on 204.20 hours billed by 13 SLP attorneys and 1 law clerk over the 4 years of litigation. Volvo is arguing that this amount should be reduced by almost $60,000 for the SLP attorneys.

            First, the Court does not grant the 1.35 multiplier. This was a simple lemon law case, with nothing particularly complex about it, regardless of the amount of time it took to litigate it. This lemon law case does not require a multiplier.

After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties and the reasons for reduction outlined in Volvo’s opposition, the Court agrees that there should be some reduction in the amount requested by Plaintiffs. Rather than reducing it by almost $60,000 like Volvo has requested, the Court will use its discretion to reduce the amount requested by Plaintiffs from SLP by $20,000 to $68,377.00. That would be a reasonable amount given that the nature of the litigation and the fact that the parties settled rather than having to go to trial. Additionally, there were instances of block billing and seemingly duplicative work by some attorneys at SLP. There were also times when SLP used boilerplate form pleadings.

The Court also notes the very substantial number of attorneys that billed on this case.  “Although 13 SLP attorneys and 1 law clerk were staffed on this case, only 4 attorneys and 1 law clerk (Tina Abdolhosseini, Eve Canton, Gregory Sogoyan, Karen Wallace, and Gregory Yu) accounted for 141.70 hours out of the 204.20 total hours billed (i.e. around 70%)…”  (Motion footnote 10.)  Even noting that roughly 70% of the attorney time was performed by only 4 attorneys, the court recognizes that there is inherent inefficiency and duplication whenever additional hands touch a file.  Plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for inherent duplication and inefficiencies that are a product of either attorney turnover and/or staffing decisions that lead to those inefficiencies.

The Court does not adjust the $7,070.00 request for CCA.

            Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $68,377.00 for SLP and $7,070.00 for CCA.

            Costs are awarded pursuant to Rule 3.1700, and nothing in this order addresses that matter.

Order

1.      Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $68,377.00 for SLP and $7,070.00 for CCA.

2.      Defendant Volvo is ordered to pay attorneys’ fees to SLP in the amount of $68,377.00 and to pay attorneys’ fees to CCA in the amount of $7,070.00.