Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCV28980, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs Rosa Serna and Vilma Serna (“Plaintiffs”) accepted a settlement offer made by Defendants, Nissan North America, Inc. (“NNA”) and Nissan of Duarte (“Nissan of Duarte”) (collectively “Defendants”), in the amount of $50,294.84. In addition to this amount, Defendants agreed in the offer that Plaintiffs would surrender the Subject Vehicle and if Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendants did not agree on an attorney’s fees amount, Plaintiffs would still have the right to petition this Court for an award of the reasonable fees, costs, and expenses reasonably earned and incurred during this litigation. (Saeedian Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiffs now move for attorneys’ fees.

Defendants have agreed that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of the present fee motion in the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Saeedian Decl. ¶¶ 19- 21.) As the prevailing party, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover its costs (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032), and under the Song-Beverly Act, the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to statute. (See, Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) Plaintiffs request a lodestar fee amount of $31,252.50 for Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses as the “prevailing party” in this litigation. This amount includes approximately 64.5 hours of time, including this fee motion. Michael Saeedian, Esq. bills at an hourly rate of $695.00 per hour and his managing attorney, Christopher Urner bills at a rate of $525.00 per hour. The firm’s law clerk Jorge Acosta bills at a rate of $250 per hour.

Plaintiffs also request $1,189.83 in connection with “filing the complaint, service of process, and electronic filing of documents and motions. “ (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 20.) Therefore, Plaintiffs seek a total of $32,442.33. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that fees are appropriate and a letter of intent to repurchase does not reduce fees. These fees also do not depend upon the settlement efforts, but rather fees are appropriate based on counsel’s efforts.

Defendant argues that all fees accrued in connection with the Negligent Repair Claim asserted against a different defendant are not recoverable as to Nissan of North America. “However, “[s]uch fees need not be apportioned when incurred for representation on an issue common to both causes of action in which fees are proper and those in which they are not.” (Bell, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 687.) Moreover, “[a]pportionment is not required when the claims for relief are so intertwined that it would be impracticable, if not impossible, to separate the attorney's time into compensable and noncompensable units.”” (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 349.)

The lodestar method looks at the time spent on a matter multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (Serrano, supra 20 Cal.3d at 49). The two-step process begins with the lodestar method, which is the time spent on the matter multiple by the hourly rate. After the lodestar method, the second step is determining whether a multiplier should be applied. The factors that Courts look at to determine if a multiplier is reasonable are: 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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132).

“In determining hourly rates, the court must look to the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” (Bell v. Clackamas County¿(9th Cir.2003) 341 F.3d 858, 868.) The rates of comparable attorneys in the forum district are usually used. (See¿Gates v. Deukmejian¿(9th Cir.1992) 987 F.2d 1392, 1405.) In making its calculation, the court should also consider the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy¿(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) Plaintiffs argue the hourly rates are reasonable. Here, the requested hourly rates are $525 and $695 for the attorneys on this case and $250 for the certified law clerk. (Dec. Saeedian ¶¶ 3-5,11.) Plaintiff argues that these rates are reasonable based on the experience of the attorneys as well as the fact that counsel took the case on a contingency basis.

Defendant Nissan North America argues in opposition that the hourly rates are too high because the matter was not a complex matter, but rather a lemon law case. Further, the majority of the work involved communicating with Plaintiffs and reviewing the file. Moreover, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ reliance on the “Laffey Matrix,” is misguided. Defendant also asserts that courts previously held Mr. Saaedian’s rates to be unreasonable and therefore Defendant seeks to reduce the hourly rate to $350.00.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that these hourly rates are reasonable for this case based on the hourly rate of similarly situated attorneys in the Los Angeles area. Based on the Laffey Matrix, attorneys with similar years of experience as Michael Saeedian have comparable, if not a higher hourly rate. Specifically, Michael Saeedian has been practicing law for about fourteen years. Thus, the hourly rates are appropriate.

Here, the Court finds that the hours were reasonable. A verified fee bill is “prima facie evidence the costs, expenses and services listed were necessarily incurred, and when they are properly challenged the burden of proof shifts to the party claiming them as costs.” (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Plaintiffs have provided a fee bill. Significantly, Defendant failed to provide any specific billing tasks which it contends are unneeded, unnecessary, or represent excessive hours or billing. Instead, Defendant provided generalized comments that there was too much communication with Plaintiffs. After reviewing the bill, the Court finds that these fees were reasonable, as Plaintiffs accepted the 998 offer after retaining counsel. Thus, the hours billed are reasonable.

In sum, the Court awards $32,442.33 in attorneys’ fees. The Motion is GRANTED.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court