Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV23243, Date: 2025-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23243    Hearing Date: June 16, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs are awarded $9,000 in attorney fees. Given that Plaintiffs did not file a verified memorandum of costs, the Court does not consider the cost request.

On 9/26/2023, Plaintiff Roberto Rodriguez and Veronica Cervantes (collectively, Defendants) filed suit against Ford Motor Company, alleging breach of express warranty.

            On 5/2/2025, Plaintiff moved for $11,611.50 in attorneys’ fees, a 0.5 lodestar multiplier of $5,805.75, and costs and expenses in the amount of $1,311.34.

Legal Standard

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.)

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”  (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.)  In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment.  (Id.)

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.  (Id.)  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.  (Id.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for attorney fees and costs totaling $18,728.59. This amount consists of: (1) attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,611.50; a lodestar multiplier of 0.5 in the amount of $5,805.75; and (3) costs and expenses in the amount of $1,311.34.

Rates

            Plaintiffs’ counsel claims the following rates:

-          Robert Knight: $600/hour

-          Armando Lopez: $400/hour for 2024 and $450/hour for 2025

-          Amy Morse: $450/hour

-          Deepak Devabose: $450/hour

-          Elvira Kamosko: $350/hour

-          Harita Nandivada: $375/hour

-          Kirk Donnelly: $500/hour

-          Jacqueline Martinez: $175/hour

-          Jacob Cutler: $495/hour for 2023-2024 and $550/hour for 2025

-          Lauren Ungs: $525/hour

-          Mitchell Rosensweig: $375/hour

-          Zachary Powell: $425/hour

-          Gonzalo Grovas Mendez: $200/hour

-          Marianne Collazo Robles: $295/hour

-          Abdiel Bustillo: $145/hour

-          Kasey Xicara: $145/hour

-          Patricia Cortazar: $145/hour

-          Wayne Pagdilao: $145/hour

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.

            (Id. at pp. 23-24.)

            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 reduces counsels’ hourly rates to a blended rate of $450, consistent with Mikhaeilpoor. In support of this reduction, the Court notes that the matter was not complex, the case did not go to trial, and there were no demurrers, motions to strike, or cross-complaints filed, nor were there Doe or Roe amendments or amendments to the pleadings. 

Hours

Plaintiffs’ counsel claims 33.7 hours of work, with billings submitted by eighteen different individuals. A review of the billing records suggest excessive billing and padding. For example, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks to recover $187.50 for a nonappearance they took of Ford’s Person Most Knowledgeable. Ford timely objected to the unilaterally noticed deposition and informed Plaintiffs’ counsel they were not available on the noticed date. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs still took this nonappearance. Plaintiffs seek to recover $472.00 for drafting an Informal Discovery Conference Request Form on July 29, 2024 and September 19, 2024. However, Defendant indicated in opposition that no IDC forms were served by Plaintiffs after March 21, 2024.

Finally, all fees after the acceptance of the 998 Offer should be excluded. The 998 Offer was accepted by Plaintiffs on December 30, 2024. Therefore, $649.00 should be excluded entirely

After an hour-by-hour analysis and given the Court’s power to make “across-the-board percentage cuts either in the numbers of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure,” the Court finds only 20 hours reasonably spent. (Gonzalez v. City of Maywood (9th Cir. 2013) 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (Gonzalez). ($450 x 20 hrs = $9,000.)

Lodestar Enhancement

Plaintiff requests a .5 lodestar enhancement based on the contingency nature of the case and the quality of the work performed.

Relevant factors to determine whether an enhancement is appropriate include (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.)

Here, the hourly rates set forth above capture the skill and the contingent nature. Thus, any multiplier would be duplicative of the calculations set forth above.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are awarded $9,000 in attorney fees. Given that Plaintiffs did not file a verified memorandum of costs, the Court does not consider the cost request.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  June    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

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.