Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00196, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00196    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      August 28, 2023                                              TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         ALICIA CERVANTES, an individual, v. KIA AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00196

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Alicia Cervantes

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Kia America, Inc.

SERVICE:                              Filed August 4, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed August 16, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed August 21, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees totaling $26,594.03.  

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Alicia Cervantes’s lemon law claim for a leased 2020 Kia Soul, Vehicle Identification Number KNDJ23AU7L7033512. Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 5, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for fees is GRANTED for a total of $18,991.53.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The Song-Beverly Act is commonly known as the automobile “lemon law.” [citation] Under the Act, “[i]f the manufacturer ... is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle ... to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new motor vehicle ... or promptly make restitution to the buyer” at the buyer's election. (§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2).)” (Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 682, 691.) A buyer who prevails under the Act “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 section 1794, subd. (d).)

“The ‘plain wording’ of section 1794, subdivision (d) requires the trial court to ‘base’ the prevailing buyer's attorney fee award ‘upon actual time expended on the case, as long as such fees are reasonably incurred—both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged.’ “ (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 35 (“Warren”).)  “A prevailing buyer has the burden of ‘showing that the fees incurred were “allowable,” were “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” and were “reasonable in amount.” ’ ” (Hanna v. Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 507.)

DISCUSSION

            On May 11, 2023, the parties agreed to settle the matter pursuant to a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer.

            “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Ibid.) Once the lodestar figure is calculated, a court may adjust the award based on factors such as “(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.) “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action.” (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff seeks $26,594.03 in attorney’s fees for the present action. This sum includes $20,402.50 in fees, $1,191.53 in costs and up to $5,000 in fees for services provided in connection with the present motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s counsel provides he charges $515.00 per hour. (Moore Decl. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff seeks fees for 43.5 hours worked for the present case. (Id. ¶ 44, Exhibit 24.) The only time-consuming, unique service provided was defending a five-hour deposition.  The other services provided in this case are limited to work related to pleadings and discovery, most of which was boiler plate. (Id. ¶¶ 11-22.) Plaintiff filed one motion to compel deposition that was continued and ultimately not heard based on the settlement in this case.

            The court finds that the reasonable hours worked for this case is 35 hours at the reasonable blended rate of $490.00 per hour for a lodestar amount of $17,150. Additionally, Plaintiff’s requests for $1,191.53 in costs is granted as well as an additional $1,000 in attorney’s fees related to the present motion.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for fees is GRANTED for a total of $19,341.53.

Dated:   August 28, 2023                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org