Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV16612, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16612    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Benito Rojas, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) moves for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) in the total amount of $29,045.96, consisting of $27,484.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,561.46 in costs.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in the total amount requested:  $29,045.96, consisting of $27,484.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,561.46 in costs.

Background

This is a Song-Beverly Act action relating to a 2023 Ford F150 (the “Vehicle”), manufactured by Defendant, which Plaintiff purchased. Plaintiff alleges certain defects in the Vehicle and presented it to Ford repair facilities for repair. The repair facilities in question were allegedly unable to repair the defects in the Vehicle.

Plaintiffs filed this action on July 3, 2024, raising claims for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of the Song-Beverly Act, section 1793.2(b); (4) violation of Civil Code, section 1796.5.

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement.

Plaintiff filed this motion on February 4, 2025. Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Also on February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs. Defendant has not separately objected to the Memorandum of Costs.

Legal Standard

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

Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

Here, Plaintiff received a net monetary recovery in the settlement and is thus the prevailing party. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Amount of Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff requests a lodestar amount of $29,045.96.

The Court has reviewed the hourly rates requested for Plaintiffs’ attorneys and finds them to be reasonable.

Defendant objects that Plaintiff’s attorneys spent more time than was necessary on this litigation given the use of form motions. The Court notes that the time spent on this case is not especially high, and that Plaintiff’s attorneys allocated the vast majority of the hours billed to Jorge Acosta, the lowest-billing attorney for whom Plaintiff seeks fees. The Court does not see a problem with Plaintiff’s attorneys’ hours. While higher fees must necessarily equate to shorter hours, the converse is also often true – and here, the hours are not especially long to begin with.  In short, the requested fees are reasonable.

The Court awards the lodestar amount of $29,045.96.

Costs and Expenses

Plaintiffs request $1,561.46 in costs and expenses. Defendant does not object to the amount of costs. The Court deems these costs reasonable.