Judge Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case 37-2019-00041001-CU-BC-CTL 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2019-00041001-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023 09:00:00 AM C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00041001-CU-BC-CTL KRUGER VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 01/11/2023

Defendant Kia America, Inc. and Weseloh Kia Carlsbad's Motion to Strike or Tax Costs is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Kyle G. Kruger and Cory A. McNabb's Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $302,963.01 ($278,235.00 in fees and $24,728.01 in costs). All objections are overruled.

The fee shifting provision at Code of Civil Procedure section 1794(d) states: 'If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court 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.' Under this provision, prevailing parties may recover for items not expressly defined by statute as 'costs.' (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138 ['it is clear the Legislature intended the word 'expenses' to cover items not included in the detailed statutory definition of 'costs'' and finding that expenses for experts were recoverable in a Song Beverly case].) In the case of the verified cost memorandum, it is prima facie evidence supporting the request and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonably necessary. (Ladas v. Cal. State Ass'n. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.) 'On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.' (Ladas, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at 774 [internal citation omitted].) While Defendant has raised objections to the reasonableness of the costs listed in the memorandum, Plaintiff has substantiated its request by submitting billing records on opposition and argued the necessity of its costs. In reviewing the record and the documents submitted, the court finds that all requested costs were reasonably necessary to the litigation and recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1794(d). Costs are awarded in the requested amount of $24,728.01.

As for fees, the trial court must first determine a 'lodestar' figure based on the reasonable time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney involved in the case. (Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

(1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 322.) The court may then apply a multiplier after considering various factors. (Id.) Plaintiffs have requested $278,235 in attorneys fees for this action, not including multiplier. The amount Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2924506 10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: KRUGER VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC [IMAGED] 37-2019-00041001-CU-BC-CTL consists of 460.5 hours of attorney time at a blended rate of $556.03 (i.e., $256,050) and 147.9 hours of paralegal time at a rate of $150 per hour (i.e., $22,185). After reviewing the declarations and billing records filed in support of the motion, the court finds the rates to be consistent with 'the prevailing rate in the community for comparable legal services' (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 156) as well as rates that this court has recently awarded in Song-Beverly Act cases.

While the number of hours appears substantial, this case was the subject of significant motion practice, delay, and trial preparation. The complaint was filed on August 6, 2019. On February 19, 2020, Defendants made an initial Section 998 offer of $5,000, which Plaintiffs rejected. Defendants made no other offer until the final settlement. The parties went on to litigate the case and the court ruled on several discovery motions over multiple hearings. (See ROAs 71, 115, 176.) The parties submitted trial briefs and motions in limine in preparation for trial. Indeed, the parties appear to have prepared for trial on more than one occasion since trial was continued no less than seven times before Defendants' final request for continuance was denied on October 20, 2022. The matter settled days later for $60,000, a relatively excellent result for Plaintiffs.

In reviewing the billing records and given the history of this case, which lasted more than three years, the court finds that the time spent was reasonable. Plaintiffs' request for a 1.50 multiplier is denied, however. There does not appear to be any complex or novel issues at play and the award itself is sufficient. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs' fee request for $278,235.00 for a total award of $302,963.01 ($278,235.00 in fees and $24,728.01 in costs).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2924506 10