Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

This case arises from a dispute over an allegedly defective Tesla.  Plaintiff Shane Shahab Satey bought a new 2022 Tesla Model X from Defendant Tesla, Inc.  Plaintiff alleges that he delivered his Tesla seventeen (17) times to Tesla to repair multiple defects.  (Compl. ¶ 16.)  Plaintiff claims Tesla was unable to service or repair the car to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts.  And Tesla failed to promptly replace the car or make restitution to Plaintiff.  (Id. ¶ 17.)   

The operative complaint alleges four claims for (1) violation of subdivision (D) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (2) violation of subdivision (B) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (3) violation of subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2, (4) breach of express warranty and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.  The parties agreed to settle the matter by way of an offer under Code Civ. Proc. §998.  The parties agreed that Plaintiff’s fees, costs and expenses should be determined by noticed motion, and for purposes of the motion, Plaintiff is the prevailing party.  Plaintiff seeks $30,516.70 consisting of (1) $21,420.00 in attorneys’ fees, (2) $670.70 in costs and expenses, (3) a .3 multiplier enhancement on the attorneys’ fees (or $6,426.00) and (4) an additional $2,000 in fees for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition, draft the reply and attend the hearing on this Motion.   

The briefing in support of the present motion totals 18 pages, which exceeds the page limits imposed by the California Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(d)¿(“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15¿pages.”).)  The Court cannot find any indication in the file that Plaintiff sought or obtained permission to file a brief that¿exceeds the¿page limit.  (See¿Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(e).)  

“A memorandum¿exceeding the permissible¿page limits ‘must be filed and¿considered in the same manner as a¿late-filed¿paper’; i.e., the court in its¿discretion may¿refuse to consider it...” (Weil & Brown,¿Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial¿(The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 9:64.17,¿citing¿Cal. Rules of Court 3.1113(g)¿(internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original)  

A court’s decision to disregard late-filed papers may not be exercised arbitrarily. (Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co., Inc. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32-33.)  A court can summarily reject late-filed papers under local rules, but if it considers them at all, it must apply¿Code Civ. Proc. § 473¿standards, and it is an abuse of discretion to refuse relief if “excusable neglect” is shown.  (Weil & Brown,¿Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial¿(The Rutter Group 2018) at ¶ 9:105.5.)  There is no indication from counsel that the failure to abide by the page limits set forth in the California Rules of Court was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (See¿Code of Civil Procedure § 473.)  Moreover, the page limit defect here is not a mere one-page violation -- it is a substantial deviation from the rules. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.  Plaintiff may re-file a code-compliant motion.    

 

DATED: April 26, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court