Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21CHCV00917, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00917    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 02-14-25

Case # 21CHCV00917, Miller v. Hyundai Motor America

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE PREVAILING PARTY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Thomas Miller

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff is requesting attorney fees in the total amount of $49,016.25 (plus an anticipated $1,950.00 related to this motion), as well as $858.85 in costs, from Defendant.

RULING: Motion for attorney fees is granted, but the Court seeks clarification on the true number of hours, as set forth in the discussion.  Costs and expenses are denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Thomas Miller (Plaintiff) sued defendant Hyundai Motor America (Defendant) for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  On November 7, 2024, the parties settled the case.  Plaintiff filed this motion on the basis that he is entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party in a Song-Beverly action.

Plaintiff is requesting $49,016.25 in attorney fees from Defendant, plus an anticipated $1,950.00 related to this motion, for a total requested fee of $51,675.90.  Plaintiff argues in his motion that the attorney fees and hourly rates are reasonable.  Plaintiff’s evidence in support of his request for attorney fees is a declaration from his attorney, Nicholas Bravo, and a billing statement that shows each task that plaintiff’s attorney worked on, what the task was, how much time was spent on the task, the hourly rate, and the amount of money for the task.  (Declaration of Nicholas Bravo, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff states Bravo’s hourly rates were $550 an hour in 2021, $600 an hour in 2022, $625 and hour in 2023, and $650 an hour in 2024 for a total lodestar of $49,016.25.  The total lodestar was calculated by multiplying the attorneys’ hourly rates by their hours worked.

Plaintiff has requested costs in the amount of $858.85.  However, costs are awarded pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700.  Costs should be requested via a memorandum of costs.  While Plaintiff indicates in his motion that the parties agreed to resolve the costs via motion and plaintiff includes the costs in his billing statement and attaches invoices to the statement, Plaintiff must file a separate memorandum of costs.

ANALYSIS

A prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10); Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).)  “A successful party means a prevailing party, and [a party] may be considered prevailing parties for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.”  (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 173, 178.)  If a buyer prevails in a Song-Beverly action, then the buyer is allowed to recover attorney fees.  (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)  Plaintiff is authorized by statute to recover attorney fees.

Plaintiff is the prevailing party because the parties settled in Plaintiff’s favor.  Plaintiff has requested a total of $51,825.10 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that Plaintiff is not a “buyer of consumer goods” because Plaintiff purchased his vehicle from an entity to whom Defendant granted warranties.  The Court rejects this argument because Plaintiff alleged he was the buyer, Defendant never challenged Plaintiff’s standing as an buyer until now, and Defendant settled with Plaintiff expressly allowing him to bring a motion for attorney fees.  Defendant also opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that Plaintiff’s attorney’s hourly rates are unreasonable.  Defendant argues that the Court should reduce Plaintiff’s unwarranted requests.  Finally, Defendant also argues that Plaintiff should not be awarded costs because Plaintiff’s request does not comply with the California Rules of Court.

Plaintiff argues in reply that he is the prevailing party due to the parties’ settlement agreement and that his attorney’s hourly rates are reasonable.

Hourly Rate

Defendant argues in its opposition that Plaintiff’s attorney’s hourly rates of $550, $600, $625, and $650 are unreasonably high and that Plaintiff’s motion does not contain a retention agreement indicating what Plaintiff was actually charged or agreed to pay.  Defendant cites a case where a trial court found attorneys’ hourly rates of $365 and $375 to be unreasonably high.  (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 255-256.)

Plaintiff argues in reply that his attorney’s hourly rates are reasonable based on the prevailing fees in the community and because multiple courts have found the attorneys’ rates to be reasonable.  (Bravo Dec., ¶¶ 9-28.)  Plaintiff also argues that his attorney’s experience justifies his hourly rates.

Based on Plaintiff’s attorney’s experience with lemon law cases and the recent approvals of his hourly rates, the Court finds that the hourly rates of $550, $600, $625, and $650 an hour are reasonable.

            Billing Entries

The Song-Beverly Consumer Act only entitles Plaintiffs to attorney fees for “actual time expended.”  (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)  This means that analysis as to whether the fees and costs sought are reasonable under the circumstances is required.  (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816.)  Once objection to the fees has been raised, then Plaintiff’s counsel bears the burden of showing that the fees were reasonably necessary, and the Court has the discretion to reduce fees awarded.  (En Palm, LLC v Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 775.)

In determining the reasonableness of fees, courts look to the factors from Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, disapproved on other grounds by Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68 fn.5.  The factors from Wollersheim are (1) the amount of money involved in the litigation; (2) the nature of the litigation and its difficulty and the intricacies and importance of the litigation; (3) the skill required and employed in handling the litigation, the necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the case, and counsel’s education and experience in the particular type of work involved; (4) the attention given to the case; (5) the success of the attorneys efforts; and (6) the time consumed by the litigation.  (Id.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s self-vouching billing entries are excessive but does not point to specific entries the Court should remove.  Plaintiff replies arguing that Defendant does not oppose any legal authority cited by Plaintiff and that in California attorneys are not required to submit time records to recover attorney fees citing Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.  Plaintiff also states that this case has been in and out of arbitration and through three separate defense firms, which has contributed to his attorney’s hours.

The Court finds the number of hours billed reasonable but Court notes that plaintiff’s billing statement is mathematically inaccurate.  The individual hourly billing entries do not add up to the “total lodestar” hours listed nor are the amount of attorney fees correct.  The memorandum states counsel worked 61.15 hours from 2021 through 2024 which equals about $49,016.25.  However, the actual calculations show: 79.9 hours worked from 2021 through 2024 equaling a total lodestar of $49,356.25.  On top of this, plaintiff seeks $1,950.00 for three (3) hours reviewing and reply to Defendant’s opposition at counsel’s 2024 rate of $650.00 per hour.

Because Plaintiff’s billing statement contains inaccurate entries, the Court will wait until hearing oral arguments to decide whether to grant or deny Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

Costs and Expenses

“A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk . . . .  The memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.”  (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a) (1) [emphasis added].)  Under the law, the court presumes a verified memorandum of costs is correct.  However, a party may contest the costs that a prevailing party seeks.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1034 subd. (a).)  The challenging party has the burden of demonstrating that those costs are unreasonable or unnecessary.  (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486.)

Plaintiff seeks a total of $858.85 in costs—$709.65 in e-filing fees and $149.20 for service of summons and complaint.  (Bravo Dec., Exh. B - Memorandum of Costs, at pp. 6-13.)  Plaintiff’s filings do not include a separate receipt for $149.20 nor did Plaintiff file a separate memorandum of costs.

Defendant opposes the request on the grounds plaintiff did not follow the procedures set forth in the California Rules of Court to recover costs.

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to present a memorandum of costs and expenses as required by Section 1034, subdivision (a).

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for costs.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is granted, but the Court seeks clarification on the true number of hours set forth in the discussion.

Costs are denied and should be addressed with a memorandum of costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.