Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV19863, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 20STCV19863    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Sonic Santa Monica M Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. 

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act; and (3) breach of express warranties pursuant to Commercial Code section 2313.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on April 26, 2023.  On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing plaintiff in a Song-Beverly Act action.  The Motion requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $248,861.25 (applying a multiplier from $165,907.50) and costs in the amount of $9,793.42.[1]

DISCUSSION

A prevailing party in an action under the Song-Beverly Act may be entitled to attorney’s fees.  (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d); see also CCP § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)  Attorney’s fees ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those necessary to establish and defend the claims.  (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639.)  The party moving for attorney’s fees has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.  (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.)  Where a case is premised on a contingent fee agreement it is appropriate to award reasonable attorney’s fees for time reasonably expended by the attorney.  (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 755.)  If the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended are not reasonable under all the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.  (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.)

In determining what constitutes a reasonable compensation for an attorney who has rendered services in connection with a legal proceeding, the court may and should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, his learning, his age and his experience in the particular type of work demanded.  (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 659.)  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.)  The verified time statements of attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.  (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.) 

             A court awards attorney’s fees based on the “lodestar” method which is “the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee.  (Id.)  The loadstar figure may be adjusted, based on a consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.  (Id.)  Generally, the reasonable hourly rate used for the lodestar calculation is that prevailing in the community for similar work.  (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 616.)  Nevertheless, where an attorney has been awarded attorney’s fees for comparable work at comparable hourly rates in other actions, the hourly rate will be deemed reasonable.  (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 473-74.)  Where a defendant does not produce evidence contradicting the reasonableness of plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates, the Court will deem an attorney’s hourly rate reasonable.  (Id. at 473.) 

            In support of the Motion, Plaintiff provides evidence of his counsel’s billing records.  (See Declaration of Steven A. Simons (“Simons Decl.”), Exhibit A.)  Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate was $650 per hour in 2019; $750 per hour for entries beginning on January 8, 2020; and $850 beginning in January 2023.  (See Simons Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit A.)  Plaintiff’s billed hours also reflect work performed by a paralegal whose hourly rate was $175 per hour for work performed up to 2021 and $225 per hour beginning in 2021.  (See Simons Decl. ¶ 21.)   The Court accepts Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly fees as appropriate but does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the case involved special issues that warrant a lodestar multiplier.

Reasonableness of Billing Entries

Where a party is challenging the reasonableness of attorney’s fees as excessive that party must attack itemized billing with evidence that the fees claimed were not appropriate or obtain the declaration of an attorney with expertise in the procedural and substantive law to demonstrate that the fees claimed were unreasonable.  (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 563-64.)  A reduced award might be fully justified by a general observation that an attorney overlitigated a case or submitted a padded bill or that the opposing party has stated valid objections.  (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 101.)  Attorney billing records are given a presumption of credibility.  (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s billing records are somewhat inflated by the use of block billing and include entries for ministerial tasks that should not be compensated.[2]  The Court agrees that the billing records submitted with the Simons Declaration include entries that combine multiple tasks and/or ministerial tasks.  (See, e.g., April 4, 2-23 entries.)  The Court therefore finds it appropriate to reduce Plaintiff’s overall recovery by $9,750, which represents 15 hours at counsel’s original $650 per hour rate, for a total award of attorney’s fees of $156,157.50, plus costs.

            The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion in part in accordance with the above.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

        Dated this 4th day of October 2023