Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2021-00027482-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00027482-CU-BC-CTL PEREZ VS SUNROAD KM CDJR LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 04/27/2023

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Documents is GRANTED, in part as follows.

Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in this action and, under the Song-Beverly Act, are entitled to recoup all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4); Civ. Code § 1794(d); Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 557; Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1139.) Further, the settlement agreement in this case provided that plaintiff would be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs upon a motion.

Parties who qualify for a fee should recover compensation for 'all the hours reasonably spent' in successfully litigating the action and obtaining their fee. In reaching the lodestar, a court begins by deciding 'the reasonable hours spent' on the case and multiplying that number by 'the hourly prevailing rate for private attorneys in the community conducting noncontingent litigation of the same type.' Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133.

Hourly Rates The hourly rates for the 10 attorneys and 2 law clerks are supported by the declaration of Roger Kirnos.

The rates range from $200-$500/hr. Defendant challenges the foundation for many of the fees based upon one attorney's declaration. Partner declarations have been acceptable to describing hours worked, hourly rates, a description of the work performed by the attorneys in the office. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009, 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 511; Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2014), 231 Cal.App.4th 860. In addition, California courts routinely grant motions for attorney's fees irrespective of individualized declarations from each attorney involved in the case. Luna v. Universal City Studios, LLC, 2016 WL 10646310; Roos v. Honeywell Internat., Inc. (2015), 241 Cal.App.4th 1472.

The Court finds that the rates as summarized by Mr. Kirnos are at the prevailing rate for private attorneys in the community conducting noncontingent litigation of the same type.

Number of Hours The Court has reviewed the billing and particularly the specific challenges raised by defendant.

Defendant argues there was 'overstaffing' – 10 attorneys, 2 law clerks. Plaintiff responds that they efficiently litigate based on skill set and that the amount of fees would most likely be higher absent the allocation of resources. Case law recognizes that multiple attorneys can be problematic if 'over-conferencing, attorney stacking (multiple attorneys at court functions), and excessive research.' (Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.) Defendant has identified 'meeting with staff' entries that would be unnecessary absent the multiple attorneys. The total is $873 or 2.1 hours of work. The Court agrees that this work is unreasonable and deducts that the amount from the fees. Defendants want an additional reduction (up to 20%) to account for time each staff member who had to 'come up to speed' on the case. As this is difficult to quantify and balanced against the benefits to efficiency in allocating the workload, the Court denies additional reductions.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967888  44 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PEREZ VS SUNROAD KM CDJR LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00027482-CU-BC-CTL Defendant challenges the accrued and anticipated fees to draft KLG's fee motion, review FCA's Opposition, draft Plaintiffs' Reply papers, and attend the hearing on this motion simply because FCA believes they should be lower. Plaintiff concedes in reply that the motion was drafted from a template but argues that this resulted in massive time savings. Plaintiffs' counsel argues it modified templates to summarize the almost one (1) year and six (6) months of litigation that took place. The Court finds that the amount of time billed for the tasks related to the attorney fees motion is not unreasonable.

FCA also challenges specific entries (p. 7) which total over $13,000. In reviewing the entries, the Court cannot conclude that the charges are unreasonable.

FCA challenges a number of tasks on the basis that they should have been allocated to paralegals. In reviewing these entries, the Court cannot conclude that they were necessarily clerical in nature such that attorney could not bill for the task. 'Drafting' orders and complaints are not necessarily clerical tasks because attorney judgment may be required.

Based on the above the Court awards $32,230.50 less $873 or $31,357.50. The Court also awards costs in the amount of $9,639.21.

Multiplier Plaintiff also requests a 1.5 multiplier.

Cases have held that a multiplier can be applied ins Song-Beverly Act cases under section 1794, subdivision (d). Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 785, 818–19 (2006). After determining the 'lodestar', the Court may then consider other factors that may either increase or reduce the lodestar amount. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [lodestar figure 'may... be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided'].) The Court must consider such factors as the nature and complexity of the case, the results obtained, the amount of work involved, the available resources, the nature of the issues, the skill required and time consumed, and the Court's own knowledge and experience. (See Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. J Festtway Contractors (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168.) This case was not particularly 'complex' nor were novel issues presented. While counsel may have taken the case on a contingency basis, the risk of not obtaining fees in this case was quite low, as attorney fees are mandatory. Moreover, there is no reciprocal risk if the manufacturer wins. The Court denies the request for a multiplier.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967888  44