Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV10487, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10487    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Maya Khakhanashvili (“Plaintiff”) moves for an award of attorney’s fees against Defendant

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as follows.

Defendant shall pay $36,895.26, comprised of $29,330.50 in attorney’s fees and $7,564.76 in costs.  Defendant shall make this payment to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

Background

This is a Song-Beverly Action. On July 27, 2023, the parties agreed to settle this case when Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s July 27, 2023 offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure, section 998. The parties settled for the amount of $162,420.00 in exchange for the surrender of the subject vehicle. The settlement did not include attorney’s fees, costs or expenses.

Evidentiary Objections

The Court overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections.

Legal Standard

In General

A buyer who prevails in an action under the Song-Beverly Act may recover their reasonable costs and expenses, attorney’s fees based on actual time expended. (Civ. Code, § 1794.)

The lodestar method for calculating attorney fees applies to any statutory attorney fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 750-751.) “Under the lodestar method, the trial court must first determine the lodestar figure—the reasonable hours spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.” (Id. at p. 751.) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted based on factors specific to the case, which may include, without limitation, “(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.” (Warren, supra, at p. 36 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

The moving party bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5).) The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)

“In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) When items are properly objected to, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

Discussion

Attorney’s Fees

As an initial issue, Defendant argues that its section 998 offer cut off subsequently accrued attorney’s fees for Plaintiff. However, because the final settlement far exceeded the offer, Plaintiff may obtain fees for the intervening period.

Hourly Rate

Plaintiff requests a number of hourly rates ranging from $225.00 to $550.00 for her attorneys at Knight Law Group, LLC. The Court finds that these rates are reasonable in light of each attorney’s experience.

Hours

Plaintiff requests a lodestar amount of $43,147.50.  This amount is excessive.  Here, Plaintiff staffed a total of fourteen attorneys on the case at various times.

“[J]ust as there can be too many cooks in a kitchen, there can be too many lawyers on a case.” (Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) “Plainly, it is appropriate for a trial court to reduce a fee award based on its reasonable determination that a routine, noncomplex case was overstaffed to a degree that significant inefficiencies and inflated fees resulted.” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 39.) As noted by the trial judge in Morris, “every time that somebody new to the file picks the file up in order to do whatever the task is, there's a certain amount of built-in startup [time].”

Although a majority of the hours were billed by just four attorneys, with this level of staffing, it is inevitable that inefficiencies will result. Lemon law cases can involve  complex technical issues, but there is nothing anomalous about this case indicating that it is substantially more complex than the average lemon law case.

In such a case, a court may appropriately make an across-the-board percentage cut in the hours claimed or the final lodestar figure. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 40.)  The Court here, however, has reviewed the billing entries and made substantive determinations about which of the fees are reasonable.

The Court awards all the hours expended by the four members of the team  (Caitlin Rice, Elvira Kamosko, Jacob Cutler, and Maxwell Kreymer) who Plaintiff identifies as expending more than half of the hours on the matter.  Their fees total $21,063.50.  These fees appear generally reasonable, particularly when the rest of the fees by the expanded team are appropriately reduced. 

For the non-core team members, the Court awards a total of $8,267.  The Court has awarded the time entries where these non-core team members performed a clearly necessary task and did so in a reasonable amount of time.  However, there are many entries that do not provide sufficient information as to whether the tasks were reasonable or provided value.  For example, many of these non-core team members billed for “reviewing” certain documents without further explanation.  Their billing entries also include various meetings.  The Court does not award such fees for the non-core team members.

Thus, the Court awards a total of $29,330.50 in fees.

Lodestar Enhancement

There is nothing unusually complex or novel about this case warranting a lodestar enhancement. The Court therefore does not grant one.

Costs

Plaintiffs provides a memorandum of costs, which the Court deems reasonable, for the most part. The Court reduces $600.00 for a court reporter for this hearing, as it does not know whether the parties will require a court reporter at the upcoming hearing.  If the parties disagree, the Court is willing to reconsider.

The Court awards $7,564.76 in costs.