Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 19STCV43562, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV43562 Hearing Date: January 25, 2024 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: Thursday, January 25, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 19STCV43562
CASE NAME: Iris Echeverria, et al. v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Iris Echeverria and
Carlos Castano
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.
TRIAL DATE: Post Judgment
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Motion for Attorney’s Fees
OPPOSITION: 9 January 2024
REPLY: 17
January 204
TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Attorney’s fees is granted in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $308,340.00 in
attorneys’ fees. No multiplier is awarded.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
Background
on December 4, 2019, Iris Echeverria and
Carlos Castano (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Kia Motors
America (“Kia” or “Defendant”) and Does 1 to 10. The Complaint alleged three
causes of action related to violations of the Song-Beverly Act: (1) breach of
express warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty, and (3) breach of Civil Code § 1793.2.
The
jury trial commenced on August 14, 2023, and the jury rendered a verdict on
August 31, 2023, in the total amount of $149,435.80. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs as
to the first and third causes of action, but not the second cause of action. (8/31/23
Verdict.)
On
December 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Defendant
Kia opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.
I. Legal Standard
Under Civ. Code § 1794(d), the prevailing party in an
action that arises out of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entitled to
fees that were reasonably incurred:¿ “If the buyer prevails 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.” (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)¿¿¿¿¿¿
¿
The lodestar method is the primary method for determining a
reasonable attorney fee award under Civ. Code § 1794(d).¿ (See Robertson v.
Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785,
818-19.)¿ “A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or
lodestar figure, based on the careful compilation of the time spent and
reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of
the case.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th
1315, 1321 [internal quotations omitted].) “The reasonableness of attorney fees
is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a
consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity
of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time
involved.¿ [citation] The court may also consider whether the amount requested
is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan
(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)¿ “The basis for the trial court's calculation
must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that
result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.”¿(Horsford v. Board of
Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359,
395.)¿“The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based
on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.”¿(Raining
Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.)¿¿¿¿¿
II. Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiffs submit
evidentiary objections to the Declaration Jacqueline Chinery:
Objections
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are overruled.
III. Discussion
Plaintiffs’ counsel,
Knight Law Group (“KLG”) and Greenberg Gross LLP (“GG”), seek to recover
$405,625.50 in attorney’s fees for 734.4 hours spent prosecuting this action as
well as a lodestar enhancement of 0.5 in the amount of $202,812.75 for a total
of $608,438.24 in attorney’s fees. The Plaintiffs also request costs in the sum
of $65,003.69. (Kirnos Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
The court addressed costs in a separate ruling.
A. Reasonable Hourly Rates
In support of the attorney
rates requested by the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration
of Roger Kirnos who attests to the experience of the Plaintiffs’ counsel.
(Kirnos Decl. ¶¶ 20 -43, Ex. A.)
The rates for KLG attorneys are
as follows:
The rates for GG attorneys are
as follows:
(Williams Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.)
Plaintiffs also submit Orders
from other courts in which Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorney rates have been found
reasonable. (Kirnos Decl. ¶ 46-68, Ex. E-Z, AA.) KLG and GG represent that on
May 11, 2023, they filed a formal notice of association and worked collaboratively
to provide representation and minimize duplication. (Williams Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11.)
A partner from each firm supervised the work to ensure, where appropriate, that
only one attorney had the primary responsibilities related to specific
projects. (Id. ¶ 11.) GG provides evidence that its billing rates
ranging from $650.00 to $875.00 have been found reasonable in Meza v. Ford
Motor Company. (LASC Case No. 21STCV19032.)
In
setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to
consider the rate of “fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in
the community for similar work.” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.
(1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled
on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th
644, 664; see also Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215
Cal.App.4th 972, 1009 [“[R]ate determinations in other cases, particularly
those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of
the prevailing market rate.”].)¿¿
Defendant
Kia objects to hourly rates charged by the Plaintiffs’ attorney on the basis
that they are excessive since 22 attorneys and paralegals from KLG worked on
the case and then associated with GG, adding 3 attorneys and one paralegal to a
simple lemon law action, despite KLG claiming to have vast knowledge,
experience, and expertise in lemon law litigation. (see Kirnos Decl.) Although
Defendant Kia urges the court to apply a negative multiplier, Kia fails to identify
which attorney hourly billing rates were excessive.
A
review of KLG’s billing records shows that the hours billed by more senior
attorneys related to preparing and defending deposition and pretrial
preparation, including drafting and opposing motions in limine. Less senior
attorneys completed the more discrete tasks such as drafting the complaint and
discovery requests. As to GG’s billing record, Mr. Suba and Mr. Phan accounted
for about 63% of the hours billed by GG. It is not surprising that many
attorneys worked on this action given the high rate of turnover at KLG and that
11 billers no longer work there. (Reply
at p. 4:1.) Moreover, that multiple attorneys worked on matters in this action
does not show that the billing rates charged by the Plaintiffs’ counsel are
unreasonable. Defendant Kia fails to point to billing entries that could have
been completed by a less expensive and inexperienced timekeeper such that the
hourly rates for those tasks should be reduced.
Defendant Kia also takes issue
with the fact that KLG associated with GG for the trial phase of this action.
KLG asserts that due to calendaring needs and the complexity of the trial
preparation for this action, KLG associated with GG to act as lead trial
counsel in this action on May 11, 2023. (Kirnos Decl. ¶ 16.) KLG billing
entries after May 11, 2023, reveal that some time was spent reviewing
correspondence and conferring with GG on trial matters but no billing for
actual trial work or attendance. Therefore, the billing after May 11, 2023,
shows that GG’s attorneys performed the actual trial work and billed tasks
related to the trial. Accordingly, the court is not persuaded that KLG’s
association with GG to handle trial matters makes the hourly rates charged by
GG attorneys unreasonable.
As Defendant Kia has failed to
show that KLG and GG’s hourly billing rates are unreasonable and the
Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted sufficient evidence that the billing rates
are within the range charged by attorneys of like experience practicing lemon
law, the court finds that the billing rates of KLG and GG are reasonable.
B. Reasonable Time Spent Litigating the Action
In setting the hourly rate for an
attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “fees
customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar
work.” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App.
4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664; see also Heritage
Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009 [“[R]ate
determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the
plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market
rate.”].)¿¿¿
KLG asserts it reasonably spent
242.90 hours litigating this action. (Kirnos Decl. Ex. A.) The Plaintiffs’
counsel asserts that the billing entries have been reviewed and any excessive,
duplicative, or unreasonably time entries have been labeled as “no charge” or
identified by “N/C” in the invoice. (Kirnos Decl. ¶ 45.) GG asserts that 491.50
hours were reasonably billed in preparing
and bringing the case to trial and obtaining judgment. (Williams Decl. Ex. 1.)
i. Billing of GG to Familiarize
Themselves with the Plaintiffs’ Case
Defendant Kia
objects to the 65.8 hours or $36,405.99 billed between April 20, 2023, and May
22, 2023, by GG to familiarize themselves with this action. Having examined the
billing entries in question, although some time was spent by GG in
familiarizing themselves with the Plaintiffs’ case, most of the billing entries
relate to preparing for upcoming hearings and subpoenas, trial strategy, and
analyzing documents in preparation for trial. Had a calendaring conflict not existed,
the trial preparation work billed by GG would likely have been less since KLG
would already have been familiar with the work. Therefore,
4.0 hours billed at $650.00 per hour or $2,600.00 will be deducted from the
billing entries of Joneis M. Phan (“JMP” or “Mr. Phan”) related to time spent
reviewing and familiarizing himself with the case. 1.5 hours billed at $650.00
per hour or $975.00 will be subtracted from Brian P. Suba's (“BPS” of “Mr. Suba”)
billing entries related to the same.
ii. Billing Related to Travel Expenses
Defendant
Kia objects to the 44.30 hours or $28,795.00 billed by Brian P. Suba and Joneis
M. Phan at a rate of $650.00 for travel between August 8, 2023, and November 6,
2023.
Plaintiffs
argue that courts have compensated attorneys at their full hourly rate for
traveling time in a Song-Beverly Act action. (Reply at p. 3, fn. 3.) None of
the cases cited by the Plaintiffs were lemon law actions and the travel time
related to travel for deposition or to meet witnesses, not to attend trial. In Miller v. Schmitz (E.D.
Cal., Feb. 15, 2017, No. 112CV00137LJOSAB) 2017 WL 633892, a federal court
awarded six hours of travel time at full rate because the time spent was found
to be “reasonable and the depositions to which he
traveled were necessary to the case[.]” (Id. at p. *15.) However, the Miller
Court also noted that “Courts have sometimes reduced hours billed by
attorneys for time spent traveling[.]” (Ibid.) Here, Mr. Phan and Mr. Suba
billed a total of 44.30
hours or $28,795.00 for time spent traveling.
As a preliminary matter,
the court notes that Mr. Suba billed 3.0 hours at a rate of $650.00/hour for
his travel time to and from LASC on 8/10/2023 for the Final Status Conference. This is in error as the FSC took place on 8/11/2023,
for which Mr. Suba also billed for travel time to and from the LASC.
The Ninth Circuit Court found in In re Washington Public Power
Supply System Securities Litigation (9th Cir. 1994) 19 F.3d 1291,
that a 50% reduction in attorney travel time was not abuse of discretion when
the reason given was that the “distractions associated with travel, especially
after a full day of work, likely reduced the attorneys' effectiveness while en
route.” (Id. at p. 1299.) The court agrees that a 50% reduction in
travel time is warranted here because counsel were likely going home after a
day in trial or returning to the office, actions that counsel would have taken
regardless of whether there was a case. Not all travel time was necessarily
incurred by this litigation.
Accordingly, the court subtracts 3 hours from the 44.3 hours
billed for travel time for the error on August 10, 2023, and subtracts 50% of
the 41.3 hours (or $13,422.50) for a total deduction from the lodestar of
$15,372.50.
iii. Billing Related to Preparing for
Depositions
Defendant
Kia takes issues with the 7.1 hours billed at a rate of $400.00/hour by Erik Viktor Muñoz (“EM”). Since the
costs related to preparing for the Plaintiffs’ deposition, the court finds that
those hours were reasonably billed and that it was prudent that a more senior
attorney handle the matter.
The
6.7 hours billed at a rate of $450.00 per hour by Kamau Edwards (“KE”) relate to
preparing for the deposition of the Plaintiffs’ expert on December 14 and 15, 2021.
The court finds that the hours were reasonably billed and that it was
reasonable for a more senior attorney to handle the deposition of Plaintiffs’
expert.
On
December 14, 2021, Thomas S. Van (“TV”) billed 13.0 hours at a rate of $450.00 per hour to
prepare for the deposition of Kia’s expert witness. Greg Mohrmn (“GM”) also billed 10.7 hours at a rate of $425.00 per hour
to prepare for Kia’s expert deposition on December 16, 17, and 30. Plaintiffs
fail to explain why two attorneys were required to prepare for the deposition
of Kia’s expert witness when only Greg Mohrmn appears to have attended
the deposition. (Kirnos Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiffs fail to explain what work
Thomas S. Van performed that could not have been performed by Greg Mohrmn or
how that work aided Greg Mohrmn in his preparation for the deposition of Kia’s
expert witness.
Accordingly, 13.0
hours billed at a rate of $450/hour or $5,850.00 will be subtracted from KLG’s
lodestar.
iv. Billing to Review 28-page Deposition of
Plaintiff Castaño
Defendant
Kia argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel excessively billed 7.7 hours or $3,205.00
to review the 28-page deposition of Plaintiff Castaño. The court agrees that
there was inefficient billing as three attorneys from KLG spent time reviewing
the transcripts instead of assigning the task to a single attorney. Moreover,
despite both Erik Muñoz and Daniel Gopstein doing the same task of reviewing
the transcript and drafting a summary, Erik Muñoz billed 0.7 hours while Daniel
Gopstein billed 3.0 hours. The court subtracts 3.0 hours billed at a rate of
$175.00/hour ($525.00) from KLG’s lodestar.
Mr.
Phan billed an additional 3.0 hours to analyze the 28-page deposition (and,
presumably, summary). The court finds
this time excessive for an experienced litigator to prepare for trial and
deducts 2.0 hours at $650 per hour ($1300) from GG’s lodestar.
v. Billing to Review Deposition of Plaintiffs’ Expert
Defendant Kia
argues that there was excessive and duplicative billing regarding the review of
the deposition transcript of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Anthony Micale. The
court finds that it was reasonable for Greg Mohrn to have billed 2.1 hours to
review the deposition to oppose Kia’s motion in limine No. 10. However,
Plaintiffs fail to explain why it was necessary for a law clerk, Daniel
Gopstien, to spend 5.0 hours billed at a rate of $175/hour or $874.00 to review
and summarize the transcripts, on June 23 and 24, 2022. There is no evidence
that GG’s counsel relied on those summaries in preparation for the trial. The court
subtracts 5.0 hours billed at a rate of $175.00/hour ($875.00) from KLG’s
lodestar.,
Moreover, on August
10, 2023, Mr. Phan billed 3.0 hours at a rate of $650/hour or $1,950.00 in
reviewing the deposition of the Plaintiffs’ expert witness. On August 13, 2023,
Mr. Suba also billed 2.6 hours at a rate of $650/hour or $1,690.00 to review
the deposition. This work was unnecessarily duplicative.
The court subtracts
3.0 hours at a rate of $650/hour ($1,950.00) from GG’s lodestar.
vi. Billing to Review the Deposition of
Kia’s Expert
Defendant Kia
argues there was excessive and duplicative billing regarding the review and
summary of Kia’s expert witness. On February 3, 2022, Greg Mohrmn billed 1.9
hours to review and draft a summary of the deposition transcript of Kia’s
expert witness. On June 23, 2022, Daniel Gopstein also billed 3.5 hours to
review and summarize the transcript.
The court agrees
that there was duplicative billing and deducts 3.5 hours billed at a rate of
$175.00/hour or $612.50 from KLG’s lodestar.
vii. Billing to Review Deposition of Kia’s PMK
On December 28,
2021, Deepak Devabose billed 1.3 hours to review and draft a summary of the
deposition of Hope Riley. On June 22 and 23, 2022, Daniel Gopstein billed 5.0
hours to review and summarize the same deposition. The court agrees that the
billing was duplicative and that 5.0 hours billed at a rate of $175.00/hour or
$875.00 should be deducted from KLG’s lodestar.
viii. Billing in Connection with KLG’s Erroneous
Filing of a Notice of Settlement
Defendant Kia
argues that 10.4 hours or $3,450.00 billed in relation to Plaintiffs’ counsel
submitting an erroneous notice of settlement should be subtracted from the
lodestar. The Declaration of Thomas Dreblow, filed on December 16, 2021, in
connection with an ex parte hearing seeking relief from the filing of the
notice of settlement, states that the notice of settlement was erroneously
filed as this case was never settled and the filing was in relation to another
case handled by KLG. (Dreblow Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, filed on 12/16/21.) As Defendant
Kia was not responsible for the error, the court finds it unfair for Defendant
Kia to bear the cost of the filing error.
Therefore,
$3,450.00 billed in relation to the erroneous filing of the notice of
settlement will be subtracted from KLG’s lodestar.
xi. Billing Related to Subpoena of Entity
Named Agero
Defendant Kia takes
issue with the 3.9 hours or $1,266.00 billed in subpoenaing the entity named
Agero. Defendant Kia fails to explain why the billing was unnecessary or
unreasonable. Plaintiffs argue that the subpoena on Agero was reasonably
incurred as Agero is the name of the third party that Kia employs to staff
their call center and the subpoena was used to assess how Kia responded to the
Plaintiffs’ prelitigation request to assess the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to
civil penalties. (Reply at p. 8:14-26.)
Nonetheless, 3.9
hours seems excessive to subpoena the entity.
The court deducts 1/3 or $422 from KLG’s lodestar.
x. Billing Related to Plaintiff’s Response
to RFP, Set 1
Defendant Kia
asserts that Heidi Alexander billed for the same task on May 6 and 7, 2021. The
court agrees and deducts 2.0 hours billed at a rate of $325.00/hour or $650.00
from KLG’s lodestar.
xi. Billing Related to Motions In Limine
Defendant Kia
argues the 10.0 hours or $4,262.50 billed in relation to the filing of the
motions in limine were excessive. Defendant Kia fails to explain why the time
billed was excessive. The court finds that the time billed was reasonable and
that deductions are not warranted. However, the court agrees that the 13.3
hours billed to review Defendant Kia’s motions in limine was excessive and
duplicative as both Greg Mohrm and Kamau Edwards billed for reviewing the
motions in limine despite Kamau Edwards not preparing or drafting the
opposition to the motions in limine. Accordingly, the court finds that the
hours billed by Kamau Edwards in reviewing the motions in limine were
unnecessarily incurred.
Therefore 4.0 hours
billed at a rate of $180.00/hour or $720.00 will be deducted from KLG’s
lodestar.
xii. Billing Related to KLG Preparing Trial
Documents
Defendant Kia takes
issue with the fact that KLG spent 19.2 hours or $8,222.00 hours in June 2022
preparing various trial documents such as drafting and revising the juror
questionnaire and trial brief in anticipation of the trial set for March 28,
2023. However, as the documents were filed in anticipation of an October 25,
2022 trial date, it was reasonable for KLG to prepare the documents in
anticipation of trial. However, the trial date was later continued to March 21,
2023, and then to August 14, 2023.
Any trial
preparation done by KLG before the change in the trial date was reasonably
incurred in anticipation of the trial commencing on October 15, 2022, and later
on March 28, 2023. Therefore, the court finds that deductions are not warranted
as costs were reasonably incurred and Defendant Kia fails to show that the
billing entries were excessive. Therefore, no deductions will be made.
xiii. Billing Related to Preparation of
Plaintiffs’ Direct Examination and Document Review
Defendant Kia
asserts that the 19.8 hours or $12,870 billed for the preparation of direct
examination of Plaintiffs and document review was excessive. The court agrees
that it appears Mr. Phan prepared and revised the direct examination of
Plaintiffs in May 2023 and again in August 2023.
The court deducts 6
hours at $650/hour ($3900) from GG’s lodestar for this duplication.
ix. Billing Related to GG’s Preparation of
Trial Exhibits
Kia objects to the
fact that Mr. Phan billed 4.60 hours at a rate of $650.00 per hour to prepare
trial exhibits in association with the testimony of Plaintiffs when KLG had
already billed for trial preparation. On June 9, 2022, and June 16, 2022,
Jeffery Mukai (“JKM”) billed 1.65 hours reviewing, revising, and finalizing the
trial documents, including the exhibit list. According to KLG’s billing
records, the exhibits were given to the court reporter on December 8, 2022. Plaintiffs’
reply fails to explain why GG also needed an additional 4.60 to finalize the
trial exhibits.
The court will
subtract 4.6 hours at $650/hour ($2,999.00) from GG’s lodestar.
x. Billing Related to Analyzing Motions In
Limine
Defendant Kia takes
issue with the 7.5 hours or $4,875.00 billed by Mr. Phan on May 23 and 24,
2023, to analyze the motions in limine. The court agrees that the 7.5 hours
spent on reeving the motions in limine is excessive and deducts 3.5 hours of
work billed at a rate of $650.00/hour ($2,275.00)
from GG’s lodestar.
xi. Billing Related to Review of 4-Page
Document
Defendant Kia
asserts that the 4.0 hours billed by Jones M. Phan to review 4 pages of
documents (DTLA 0235-0238) produced on July 13, 2023, in connection with the
deposition of Kia’s KMP was excessive. The court agrees that the billing was
excessive for an experienced attorney and deducts 3.0 hours billed at a rate of
$650/hour ($1,950) from GG’s lodestar.
xii. Billing Related to Attending the FSC
on 7/25/23
Defendant Kia
objects to the 11.1 hours or $7,475.00 billed to attend the FSC on July 25,
2023, when the parties stipulated to continue the FAC to August 8, 2023. The
court finds that the hours billed by Jones M. Phan to prepare for the FSC,
including analyzing Kia’s motion in limine were reasonably billed. However, the
court notes that both Jones M. Phan and Brian P. Suba billed to attend the
final status conference on July 25, 2023, but that Mr. Phan billed 4.60 for
attendance while Mr. Suba only billed 1.0 hours. Plaintiffs’ counsel fails to
address the discrepancy. Accordingly, 3.60 hours billed at a rate of $650.00
per hour ($2,340.00) will be deducted from GG’s lodestar.
xii. Billing Related to Preparation for the
Deposition of Kia’s PMK
Defendant Kia argues
that the 11.6 hours billed by Mr. Phan to prepare for the deposition of Kia’s
PMK was excessive. The billing included 2.5 hours spent preparing for the
deposition and 4.50 hours spent analyzing exhibits in preparation for the
deposition. The court agrees that the billing was excessive and deducts 1.5
hours billed at a rate of $650.00/hour ($975.00) from GG’s lodestar.
xiii. Billing Related to GG’s Trial Preparation
Kia objects to the
94.3 hours or $61,295.00 billed by GG in relation to trial preparation because
Kia asserts that KLG had already done the work and appeared in pretrial
hearings. After examining GG’s billing entries, there is no evidence that GG
relied on any of the trial preparation material KLG produced when it was
preparing for trial, including summaries, trial documents, and trial exhibits.
To avoid duplicative billing and ensure efficiency, it was on KLG and GG to
coordinate and minimize the time spent preparing for trial when KLG had already
done trial preparation. This should have resulted in GG’s billing less time for
trial preparation instead of starting the trial preparation anew. Therefore,
the court find that deductions are warranted. 20.3 hours billed at a rate of
$650.00/hour or $13,195.00 will be subtracted from GG’s lodestar.
xiv. Billing by GG Related to Trial
Kia asserts that GG
billed excessively because two partners billed for attending the trial. The
court does not find that this was unreasonable as this case did present unique
issues regarding how many times the Plaintiffs presented the subject vehicle
for repair. Plaintiffs are entitled to
have two experienced attorneys represent them at trial, assuming they did not
duplicate each other’s work tasks. No deductions are warranted as to this
issue.
xv. Billing Related to JNOV
Kia objects to the
66.5 hours or $43,290.00 billed by GG in opposing Kia’s JNOV. On reply, the Plaintiffs’
counsel fails to show that 66.5 hours billed in relation to opposing and
preparing for the hearing related to the JNOV were reasonably incurred. The
court agrees that deductions are warranted as the billing is excessive as GG
should have spent at most about 15.0 hours on the matter given GG’s trial
experience.
51.5 hours billed
at a rate of $650/hour or $33,475.00 will be deducted from GG’s lodestar.
C. Request
for a Multiplier
The lodestar amount “may be
adjusted by the court based on factors including (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.”¿ (Bernardiv.
County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1399, citing Ketchum v.
Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)¿ The purpose of any lodestar and the
increase thereto “is intended to approximate market-level compensation for such
services” and is entirely discretionary.¿ (Id.)¿“The purpose of a fee
enhancement is not to reward attorneys for litigating certain kinds of cases,
but to fix a reasonable fee in a particular action.”¿ (Weeks v. Baker &
McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1171-72.)¿¿¿¿
Plaintiffs’ counsel requests a
multiplier of 0.5 in the amount of $202,812.75 on the basis that the case was
tried on a contingency basis with the possibility that there would be no
compensation and the litigation went on for almost 4 years. The court finds
there is no reasonable basis to award a multiplier because the time and skill
of counsel, as well as the contingent nature of the representation, are
compensated with fees. Plaintiffs’ counsel also failed to show how this case is
different from other lemon law actions or presented new or complex issues that
made this case particularly hard to litigate. The fact that this case presented
triable issues of fact as to how many times the Plaintiffs presented the
subject vehicle for repair does not warrant a multiplier.
¿¿¿
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ request
to award a multiplier is denied.
D. Adjusted
Lodestar
The unadjusted lodestar is $405,625.50
composed of $94,363 billed by KLG and $311,262.50 billed by GG.
(Kirnos Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A; Williams Decl.
¶ 12, Ex. 1.)
The deductions made to KLG’s lodestar
total $13,979.50
·
Billing
Related to Preparing for Depositions - $5,850.00
·
Billing to Review 28-page Deposition of
Plaintiff Castaño - $525.00
·
Billing to Review Deposition of Plaintiffs’
Expert - $875.00
·
Billing to Review the Deposition of Kia’s Expert
- $612.50
·
Billing to Review Deposition of Kia’s PMK - $875.00
·
Billing in Connection with KLG’s Erroneous
Filing of a Notice of Settlement - $3,450.00
·
Billing Related to Plaintiff’s Response to
RFP, Set 1 - $650.00
·
Billing related to Agero subpoena - $ 422.00.
·
Billing Related to Motions in Limine -
$720.00
The deductions made to GG’s lodestar
total $83,306.00
·
Billing of GG to Familiarize Themselves with the Plaintiffs’
Case - $3,575.00
·
Billing
Related to Travel Expenses - $15,372.00
·
Billing
related to Reviewing 28-page deposition of Plaintiff Castano - $1300
·
Billing
related to Reviewing Deposition of Plaintiff’s Expert - $1950.
·
Billing
related to Preparation of Plaintiff’s Direct Examination & Document Review
- $3900.00
·
Billing Related to GG’s Preparation of Trial
Exhibits - $2,999.00
·
Billing Related to Analyzing Motions In
Limine - $2,275.00
·
Billing Related to Review of 4 Page Document
- $1,950.00
·
Billing Related to Attending the FSC on
7/25/23 - or $2,340.00.
·
Billing Related to Preparation for the
Deposition of Kia’s PMK - $975.00
·
Billing Related to GG’s Trial Preparation -
$13,195.00
·
Billing Related to JNOV - $33,475.00
The deductions total $97,285.50
making the adjusted lodestar $308,340.00.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Attorney’s fees is granted in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $308,340.00 in
attorneys’ fees. No multiplier is awarded.
Plaintiffs to give notice.