Judge Jon R. Takasugi, Case Number: 23STCV01149, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Given that Plaintiffs’ motion did not include a verified memorandum of cost, the Court does not consider the cost award at this time.

On 1/11/2022, Plaintiffs David Curtis and Stephanie Griffith (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.

Now, Plaintiffs move for $87,821.25 in attorney fees and costs totaling $1,535.53.

The party claiming attorneys’ fees must establish entitlement to such fees and the reasonableness of the fees claimed. (Civic Western Corporation v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 16.) “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties[.]” (CCP § 1021.)

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 attorneys’ efforts, their learning, their age, and their experience in the particular type of work demanded the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 657.)

In determining the proper amount of fees to award, courts use the lodestar method. The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of reasonable hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate. “Fundamental to its determination … [is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney … in the presentation of the case.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).) A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney. (Id. at 49.) “Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues. A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV); see also Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1587 (“The trial court could make its own evaluation of the reasonable worth of the work done in light of the nature of the case, and of the credibility of counsel’s declaration unsubstantiated by time records and billing statements.”)

Reasonable attorney fees should be based on an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., the market value of services rendered, not on some notion of cost incurred. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1090.) The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. (Id. at 1096.) The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. (Ibid.) The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs seek $87,821.25 in attorney fees. This is based on a lodestar of $58,547.50, and a requested lodestar enhancement of 0.5 in the amount of $29,273.75.

Plaintiffs’ counsel claims the following hourly rates for the attorneys who worked on this case:

- Brian T. Shippen-Murray: rate until 3/20/2022: $450/hr; for remainder of 2022: $500/hr; after 1/1/2023: $550/hr

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s rates are excessive, given that lemon law cases generally are not complex. The Court agrees. In Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41, the trial court reduced the rates of Bryan Altman of the Altman Law Group, who has 30-plus years of litigation experience with over 100 jury trials, of which 20-plus were as lead trial counsel in lemon law cases, from $650 to $500 per hour, reduced Steve Mikhov of the Knight Law Group from $500 to $400, and reduced all the associates’ rates that ranged from $450 to $350 to $300 per hour. (Id. at 8-9.) In support of the lower court decision, the court of appeal held that:

[E]ven if Morris established that her attorneys’ rates were generally commensurate with other consumer law attorneys with the same level of experience and skill, Morris ignores that there are a number of factors that the trial court may have taken into consideration in determining that reductions in the attorneys’ hourly rates were warranted. The court reasonably could have reduced the rates based on its finding that the matter was not complex; that it did not go to trial; that the name partners were doing work that could have been done by lower-billing attorneys; and that all the attorneys were doing work that could have been done by paralegals.

Similarly, Judge Randolph Hammock of the Los Angeles County Superior Court recently found rates of $350 per hour appropriate for an “experienced” lawyer to take a lemon law case all the way through trial. (See Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 245-46 [“The court found the requested fee amount “was just not reasonable.”… The court decided that $350 “is a reasonable hourly rate for the services that were done.”].)

Here, the Court finds the hourly rates to be unreasonable, and reduces the hourly rates for each of plaintiffs’ attorneys to a reasonable blended $350 per hour for all attorneys who litigated this case, consistent with Mikhaeilpoor. This is based the fact that this case did not address novel or difficult questions, and was straightforward and simple. No depositions took place and no trial documents were prepared.

Plaintiff’s counsel claims a total of 102.6 hours. A review of the billing records indicates padding and duplicative and unnecessary billings. For example, a substantial portion of the billing records are for “reviewing,” “analyzing,” and “conferring.” Given the simplicity of the case, and the limited discovery, the quantity of such billings indicate padding. Moreover, there are multiple billings for the same meet and confer. For example, on 7/11/2023, there are three separate billings for the same meet and confer. After review, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s fee award should be reduced consistent with the proposed reductions in Defendant’s Exhibit A. Accordingly, the Court reduces the reasonable hours to 63, and thus awards $22,050.00 in reasonable attorney fees.

Plaintiff did not submit a verified memorandum of costs and thus the Court does not consider the cost request at this time.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

[1] In declaration, it is stated that Mr. Rosenstein’s rate was “recently increased” to $700, but does not state when exactly the hourly rate increased.