Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV14566, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14566    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

            On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff Raymond Parungao (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi West Covina (jointly “Defendants”).  The Complaint asserted three causes of action for (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2(b).

            On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement as to the entire action. 

            On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.  On January 16, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition.  On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), attorney fees when authorized by contract or statute are allowable as costs and may be awarded upon a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(5).

In determining what fees are reasonable, California courts apply the “lodestar” approach. (See, e.g., Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.)  This inquiry “begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (See PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  From there, the “[t]he lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Ibid.)  Relevant factors include: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of 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, 1132.)

Discussion

Right to Recover

A prevailing buyer in an action under the Song-Beverly Act “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.” (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)  “[W]hen ‘prevailing party’ is undefined by the statute, ‘a court may base its attorney fees decision on a pragmatic definition of the extent to which each party has realized its litigation objectives, whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise. [Citations.] In assessing litigation success, Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 877, ... instructs: ‘[C]ourts should respect substance rather than form, and to this extent should be guided by “equitable considerations.”’”  (MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1048.)

            On September 5, 2023, the parties settled the instant action.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶¶ 16-18.)  As part of this settlement, Plaintiff was established as the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees and costs under Civil Code section 1794(d).  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 19.)  Moreover, no party disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses as the prevailing party. 

Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs totaling $45,113.99 consisting of $42,652.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,461.99 in costs.

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The party bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5).) The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.)

An attorney's testimony as to the number of hours worked is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records or billing statements, and there is no requirement that such records or statements be offered in evidence. (Steiny & Co., Inc. v. California Electric Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.)  Ascertaining the fee amount is left to the trial court’s sound discretion. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)  Moreover, “[t]here is ‘no mathematical rule requiring proportionality between compensatory damages and attorney's fees awards’, [Citation], and courts have awarded attorney's fees where plaintiffs recovered only nominal or minimal damages.”  (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407, 421.)

The court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award, which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-1394.)  The court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Indus. Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-275.)

Attorney Michael Saeedian, Esq. is the lead attorney for the instant action and a partner at The Lemon Pros, LLP.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 1.)  Saeedian has been a practicing attorney since 2009 in California.  In addition to his work at The Lemon Pros, LLP, Saeedian founded the Saeedian Law Group.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 2.)  Saeedian has served as lead counsel in numerous cases, is a member of multiple attorney associations, and has received multiple awards.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  Saeedian claims an hourly rate of $695 per hour.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 3.)

Attorney Christopher Urner is the managing attorney for The Lemon Pros, LLP since May 2022.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 4.)  Urner has been a practicing attorney since 2016 and has extensive experience in lemon law litigation, including participating in several high-profile lemon law cases.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 4.)  Urner claims an hourly rate of $525 per hour.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Jorge Acosta is a certified law clerk who has spent five years in the legal industry as a certified law clerk and recently passed the February 2023 bar examination.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 5.)  Acosta claims an hourly rate of $250 per hour.  (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 5.)

“The trial court [i]s entitled to rely on [an attorney’s own] declaration[] to determine the reasonable rates for experienced attorneys in Los Angeles County.”  (Pasternack v. McCullough (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1059.)  The Court finds these hourly rates to be reasonable based on Counsel’s and the law clerk’s experience.  (Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 883, 899 [“trial court has its own expertise in the value of legal services performed in a case [Citations] and it may rely on its own familiarity with the local legal market in setting the hourly rate[.]”].)   

However, in light of Plaintiff’s Counsel firm’s expertise in lemon law actions, as reflected in Counsel’s relatively high hourly rates, the Court finds the hours claimed are somewhat excessive – especially given that little to no active litigation occurred in the instant action.  For example, Plaintiff’s Counsel claimed .2 hours for  drafting a request for entry of default but no default was ever requested.  (Saeedian Decl., Exh. A.)  Similarly, in light of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s firm’s expertise in lemon law matters and in light of the availability of templates from other lemon law actions that Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s firm has handled in the past, propounding and responding to discovery and reviewing Defendants’ motions in limine (which were not atypical of motions in limine in other lemon law cases) are routine matters that should have required only a fraction of the hours that Plaintiff’s Counsel billed.  Accordingly, given these factors, a reduction is warranted. 

Considering the totality of these factors, the Court concludes based on the claimed experience of Plaintiff’s Counsel, as reflected in his hourly rate, a reduction is warranted.  Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees incurred is $32,000.00.

Costs

As to costs, the claimed costs of $2,461.99 are uncontested and do appear to be reasonably incurred with the instant action.  (CCP § 1033.5.)  Moreover, “the Legislature amended section 1794 to provide for the recovery of “costs and expenses.” The legislative history indicates the Legislature exercised its power to permit the recovery of expert witness fees by prevailing buyers under the Act[.]”  (Ibid.)  “[T]he Legislature intended the phrase ‘costs and expenses’ to cover items not included in ‘the detailed statutory definition of “costs” ’ set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.”  (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42.)  Therefore, a prevailing buyer is entitled to “costs and expenses” that have been “determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.”  (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)

Accordingly, the requested costs are granted in full.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

            Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff Raymond Parungao’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in the total amount of $34,461.99 consisting of $32,000.00 in Attorneys’ Fees and $2,461.99 in Costs.

            Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: January ___, 2024                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          Elaine Lu

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court