Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00292, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00292 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: October 24, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: SARA BASSIRI, an individual, v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; JAGUAR LAND ROVER PORTLAND; SILVER STAR A.G., LTD
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00292
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sara Bassiri
RESPONDING PARTY: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Portland, and Silver Star A.G., LTD
SERVICE: Filed September 20, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed October 11, 2023
REPLY: Filed October 17, 2023
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff seeks fees totaling $80,961.19.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Sara Bassiri’s lemon law claim for a new 2021 Land Rover RR Sport SE/H, Vehicle Identification number SALWR2SYU7MA759958 (“Subject Vehicle”), she leased on February 2, 2022. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 20, 2022.
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED for a total of $31,161.19
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
Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees following settlement of this case by a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer where Defendants agreed to pay restitution, civil penalties, and attorney’s fees. (Mot. at p. 1:16-20.)
“[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 requests fees totaling $80,961.19, which includes $50,900.00 in attorney’s fees, a .50 multiplier, $1,111.19 in costs, and $4,500 for additional costs related to the present motion. Plaintiff seeks fees for 121.1 hours worked at rates of either $400 per hour or $450 per hour. (Ahoubim Decl. ¶ 40-45, Exhibit 2.) Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on May 20, 2022. Since then, the parties have engaged in discovery, case management conferences, and met and conferred regarding discovery responses. (Id. ¶¶ 13-36.) Although Plaintiff’s counsel provides discovery motions were drafted, no motions were filed in the present case.
The court finds that the reasonable number of hours worked for this case is 63 hours at a blended rate of $450 per hour. Thus, the lodestar amount is $28,350. Further, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that a multiplier is warranted in a routine lemon law case where no motions were filed nor novel issues litigated. Lastly, Plaintiff is awarded an additional $1,700 for four hours worked at $425 per hour for time expended on the present motion.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED for a total of $31,161.19 ($28,350 lodestar, $1111.19 in costs, and $1,700 for the present motion.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: October 24, 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. alhdeptx@lacourt.org