Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV10537, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff, David Lemesurier, filed this action against Defendants, Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Sunrise Ford Fontana, for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code § 1790, et seq. Ford filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 8, 2023.¿

On November 1, 2023, Ford served an Offer to Compromise and Acceptance Under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.¿ Plaintiff accepted the 998 Offer on December 4, 2023.

On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and concurrently filed a Memorandum of Costs.

Plaintiff seeks a total award of $37,567.65, consisting of $36,098.00 in attorney fees and $1,469.65 in costs.

On December 4, 2023, the parties agreed to settle the matter. (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 22-24.) The settlement provides for attorney fees by motion under Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d). (Notice of Motion, p. ii.)

(d) If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing party. The only matter at issue is the reasonableness of the fees requested.

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134.) “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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….” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 664.) The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 615.)

The court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-94.) The court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

Plaintiff retained The Lemon Pros, LLP for this matter which involved work by attorneys Michael Saeedian and Christopher Urner, billing at hourly rates of $695 and $525, respectively. (Saeedian Decl., ¶ 11.) Law clerk Jorge Acosta also billed a portion of the hours at $250 per hour. (Id.)

Ford argues the hourly billing rates for Plaintiff’s attorneys are excessive and unsupported. (Opp., pp. 4-5.) In particular, Ford attacks Mr. Saaedian’s hourly billing rate of $695 and requests that the court apply a blended rate of $250.

Based upon general prevailing rates in the Los Angeles area for this type of litigation, the court finds the reasonable rate for attorney billing is as follows: for lodestar purposes, the court will award a “blended” hourly rate of $500.00 per hour. (See, e.g., Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 256 [trial court has discretion to award a “blended hourly rate” for attorney’s fees motion].) The court further finds the reasonable rate for support staff billing to be $200.00 per hour. This determination considers the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided, and the attorneys’ experience.

Plaintiff’s records reflect a total of 78 hours billed. (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 51, 52, Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel billed roughly 40 hours and a law clerk billed roughly 38 hours. (Id.)

“[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged [within the moving party’s verified billing invoice], with a sufficient argument and citations to 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.)

Ford objects to Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to recover fees for administrative tasks performed by a non-attorney. (Opp., pp. 6-7.) Ford also objects to the amount of billing given that The Lemon Pros uses templates from prior cases for preparing form discovery and meet and confer letters. Ford requests a reduction for administrative tasks and for tasks involving the use of form documents. This court agrees with many of these observations.

The court appreciates that this case progressed towards trial. Along the way, Plaintiff served and responded to standard written discovery, and filed motions to compel further responses which were ultimately not heard because the parties agreed to settle the matter. (Saeedian Decl., Ex. A.) There was little law and motion practice.

Moreover, there was nothing particularly complex or unique about this case. The issues involved were applicable to other consumers’ vehicles, thereby triggering economies of scale in terms of Plaintiff’s counsel’s efficiency in litigating this type of lemon law case. As Plaintiff’s counsel law firm’s name suggests, they specialize in lemon law cases. Litigating this matter should not have required more than slight factual modification to existing boilerplate. The court also notes this case settled less than seven months after it was filed.

Considering these facts, the court agrees that in some instances, the time quoted is excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case, using a lodestar methodology, is $20,000. This was calculated by (1) multiplying the hourly rate of $500.00 by 30 hours out of 40 hours billed, which the court deems to be the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees expended in this matter, and (2) multiplying the hourly rate of $200.00 by 25 hours out of 38 hours billed, which the court deems to be the total number of reasonable non-attorney fees expended in this matter.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court