Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV10331, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10331 Hearing Date: December 11, 2023 Dept: 68
Christina Picotte vs. All In Auto Group, et al., 22STCV10331
Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Moving Party: Plaintiff Christina Picotte
Responding Parties: Defendants All In Auto Group and Capital One Auto Finance
Moving Party’s Position
This was a Consumers Legal Remedies Act case that the parties settled in Plaintiff’s favor for $25,000. The Settlement and Release Agreement (SRA) signed by the parties states that “Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff’s costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in the Lawsuit.” (Quirk Decl., Ex A, p. 2, ¶ B.2.) Plaintiff is requesting attorney’s fees pursuant to the SRA and Civ. Code § 1717, which allows for attorney’s fees when a contract provides for such fees.
Plaintiff is requesting $73,661.00 for attorney fee’s incurred from her attorney Mr. Quirk, based on 123.8 hours at $595.00 an hour. Plaintiff is also requesting $5,450.00 for attorney’s fees incurred from work done by Ms. Foley, another attorney, for 10.9 hours at a rate of $500.00. This makes the total lodestar amount $79,111.00. On top of the lodestar, Plaintiff is also requesting that a multiplier of 1.5 be applied to the lodestar amount. Plaintiff argues that her attorneys’ hours were reasonably expended and their hourly rates were reasonable.
Plaintiff has also requested costs as part of this motion.
Opposing Parties’ Position
Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees. Defendants do, however, dispute the amount requested as being unreasonable. Defendants argue that the hourly rate of Plaintiff’s requested fees are excessive and that the motion fails to provide sufficient information regarding the nature and value of the services rendered. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ hourly rates are unreasonable and should be reduced. Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for a 1.5 multiplier should be denied because the case was not complex.
Finally, Defendants argue that the reasonable hours for this case would have been 38 hours at a reasonable hourly rate of $450 an hour for a total of $17,100.
Reply
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ assertion that she did not provide billing invoices is false. Plaintiff included invoices as exhibits attached to her attorneys’ declarations. Plaintiff also argues that her fees are reasonable and not excessive, and Defendants failed to indicate any specific time entry as being unreasonably incurred. Plaintiff also argues that the hourly rates are reasonable. Finally, Plaintiff argues that a multiplier is warranted.
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).)
Defendants argued that there were only three short stages to this case: the initial pleading stage, the discovery stage, and the settlement stage. No depositions were taken, and no motions were filed by the parties until this motion for attorney fees. Based on this, Defendants argue that no multiplier should be applied. The factors to consider for a multiplier are (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill needed for those questions, (3) the extent to which the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122.) Here, there is no indication that the questions involved in this case were particularly difficult, nor is there any indication that it precluded other employment by the attorneys. If the attorneys spent over 133 hours on this case from March 2022 to November 2023, that averages out to less than an hour a day spent on this case. Plaintiff’s attorneys would certainly not have been precluded from other employment. Plaintiff’s attorneys have also not provided any specific indication that this was particularly complex litigation, other than their general assertion that it was complex and required skill. The Court will not apply a multiplier.
As for the fees requested by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the hourly rates of Plaintiff’s attorneys, $595 and $500, are reasonable. The Court has reviewed the information provided by way of counsel's declarations and exhibits. The Court is also mindful of the nature of the claim and the policy of compensating attorneys for their reasonable hours spent litigating the matter. There is also the contingent nature of this type of case which the court considers as well. The Court finds that $79,111.00 is a reasonable total attorney fee for this matter. The Court declines to include a multiplier.
Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $79,111.00.
Costs are awarded pursuant to Rule 3.1700, and nothing in this order addresses that matter.
Order
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees is granted in the amount of $79,111.00.