Judge James A. Mangione, Case 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024 09:00:00 AM C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Contract - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL BROUARD VS HYANDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Barbara Brouard and Max Brouard's Motion for Attorney's Fees is granted in part.

Plaintiffs seek attorney's fees under subdivisions (d) and (e) of Civil Code § 1794 and Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420.

Civil Code § 1794 'Section 1794, subdivision (d) makes clear that a prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees based on actual time expended in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.' (Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1016 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) Similarly, subdivision (e) grants attorney's fees where a Plaintiff establishes that a manufacturer violated its duty to 'promptly replace [or] . . . make restitution to the buyer' if the manufacturer is unable to conform the vehicle to warranty within a number of reasonable repair attempts. (Civ. Code §§ 1793.2(d)(2), 1794(e)(1).) Read together, Subsection (d) of 1794 grants attorney's fees to a prevailing party while Subsection (e) grants attorney's fees to any party able to establish a violation. Because Section 1794 is a fee-shifting statute that does not define 'prevailing party', trial courts should 'determine which party succeeded on a practical level, by considering the extent to which each party realized its litigation objectives.' (Patel, 43 Cal.App.5th at 1016 (quotation marks omitted).) 'Thus, the prevailing party under section 1794, subdivision (d) is not necessarily determined by whether there is a net monetary recovery. [Citation.] Instead, a party who is denied direct relief on a claim may nonetheless be found to be a prevailing party if it is clear that the party has otherwise achieved its main litigation objective.' (Id. at 1017 (quotation marks omitted).) Plaintiffs characterize their main litigation objective as 'establish[ing] a right to the refund or replacement remedy, and therefore liability on [Defendant's] behalf'. (ROA 593, pg. 6.) However, a right to refund or replacement by itself does not establish liability. Liability only exists where a plaintiff shows that the manufacturer 'did not promptly replace or buy back the vehicle'. (CACI § 3201, element 6.) Where, as here, the jury finds that the manufacturer did not fail to promptly repurchase or replace the vehicle, there is no liability. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney's fees under Section 1794(d)(1) because they are not the prevailing party or under Section 1794(e) because they did not establish a violation of Section 1793.2(d)(2).

Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 A party requesting an admission of the truth of any matter can seek attorney's fees where the responding party fails to make such admission and the requesting party 'thereafter proves . . . the truth of that matter'. (CCP § 2033.420(a).) Attorney's fees shall be granted unless the court finds one of the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105439 18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BROUARD VS HYANDAI MOTOR AMERICA [IMAGED] 37-2018-00063539-CU-CO-CTL applicable exceptions, including that '[t]here was other good reason for the failure to admit'. (Id. § 2033.420(b).) Here, Plaintiffs seek attorney's fees for Defendant's failure to admit that they were entitled to a replacement or repurchase of their vehicle and cite to Defendant's responses to Request for Admissions Numbers 6, 7, 15 and 16. Defendant's responses to RFA Nos. 6 and 7 denied that its authorized repair facilities failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of repair attempts.

Additionally, Defendant admitted that 'the Better Business Bureau awarded a repurchase to Plaintiffs' but denied 'any obligation to repurchase the vehicle prior to Plaintiffs' acceptance of such decision'.

(ROA 564, Ex. 6 at pg. 11.) Plaintiffs assert that 'one-half of Plaintiffs' fees and expenses were dedicated to proving these issues at trial'. (ROA 562, pg. 15.) As an initial matter, Defendant's opposition failed to address this basis for Plaintiffs' attorney's fee request, thereby conceding the issue. (See (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) However, Defendant's generally opposed the hourly rate sought by Plaintiffs and challenged the requested fees as duplicative/inflated. Furthermore, the Court agrees that, following the arbitrator's decision, there was no reasonable ground for Defendant to believe that it would prevail on this issue at trial nor any good reason for failing to make the requested admissions. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to award attorney's fees on this limited issue.

The Court finds it appropriate to reduce the hourly amount sought by Plaintiffs to $300. Furthermore, the Court finds Plaintiffs' estimate that counsel spent nearly 400 hours on this issue to be excessive.

Furthermore, Defendant admitted that, following the arbitrator's decision, it was obligated to repurchase the vehicle. The Court finds that 70 hours is a reasonable amount of time spent litigating this issue.

Therefore, Plaintiffs are awarded $21,000 in attorney's fees.

-- Plaintiffs Barbara Brouard and Max Brouard's Motion to Tax Costs is granted in part.

For the reasons identified in the Court's concurrent ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees, Plaintiffs are not the prevailing party, and Defendant is entitled to recover costs by statute. Plaintiffs have challenged nearly every cost item listed by Defendant. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request to tax the following: Drop off service of motion briefing: $1,319.91 Costs related to disqualification motions: $3,622.61 Deposition of Mario Haro for lack of supporting documentation: $3,832.70 Pre-Covid 19 Court Call hearings: $282 Hotel/Meals/Travel during trial: $8,031.87 Dry cleaning: $191.40 In sum, the Court taxes $17,280.49 of the costs sought by Defendant. Defendant is awarded costs of $15,080.49.

Defendant is directed to submit a revised judgment consistent with the Court's ruling within five (5) court days.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105439 18