Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV07800, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07800    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     May 8, 2025                                       TRIAL DATE:  Vacated

CASE:                         Hyung Min Lee v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV07800

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff Hyung Min Lee

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

I.          BACKGROUND

            On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff Hyung Min lee filed a Complaint against Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for violations of the Song-Beverly Act. 

On March 10, 2025, the parties reached a settlement.[1]

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses. 

On April 14, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition. 

On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff replied. 

II.        DISCUSSION AND LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff seeks a total award of $22,330.00.  This amount consists of attorney fees of $22,330.00, costs and expenses of $884.90, and an additional $1,500.00 to review Defendant’s opposition and draft a reply. 

            On March 10, 2025, the parties agreed to settle the matter.¿ (Cha Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.)  The agreement and authorizes recovery of reasonable incurred fees and costs as determined by the court.¿ (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing party.¿  Defendant does not challenge the costs or the request for the additional $1,500.  The only matter at issue is the reasonableness of the fees requested.¿ 

A.  Attorney Fees

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.)¿ 

It is settled “ ‘that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court .... [Citations.] The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. [Citation.] The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony.’ ” (PLCM Group v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1096; accord, Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 [the “ ‘ “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and ... his judgment ... will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong” ’ ”].)

1.      Reasonable Hourly Rate¿  

Plaintiff retained The Law Offices of Alex Cha & Associates for this matter which involved work by attorney Alex Cha billing at an hourly rate of $550. (Cha Decl., ¶ 14, Ex B.)¿.

            Defendant argues the hourly billing rates for Plaintiff’s attorney is unreasonable.  Defendant requests a reduction to $350.

            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 $500.00 per hour.¿¿ This determination considers the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided, and the attorneys’ experience.

2.      Number of Hours Reasonably Expended¿ 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s records reflect a total of 40.6 billable hours spent litigating this matter. ¿(Cha Decl., Ex. B.)  Defendant argues the hours billed are excessive and unreasonable.  

¿           “[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.)¿¿¿ 

¿           Defendant objects to the amount of billing given Plaintiff’s counsel’s use of discovery templates, Plaintiff’s service of unverified discovery responses with boilerplate objections to Defendant’s discovery, Plaintiff’s use of “block-billing,” improper billing for service of process.  Defendant challenges specific entries.  (Opp., pp. 9-10.)  Defendant also requests an application of a negative multiplier.  Plaintiff contends they were reasonably incurred.

The court appreciates that this case was settled less than a year after it was filed.¿ Along the way, Plaintiff served and responded to standard written discovery.  Save for this motion, there was no 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.¿  

Considering these facts, the court agrees that in some instances, the time quoted is excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances.¿¿Accordingly, the court finds the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case is $16,900.00 (33.8 hours at $500 per hour).  This was calculated by reducing Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing entries as follows:

·         0.20 total hours billed on March 29, 2024 for service of “summons and complaint on both defendants.”  (Cha Decl., Ex. B.)  The court does not award fees for this entry. 

·         2.80 total hours billed on April 15, 2024 for preparing Plaintiff’s written discovery to propound on defendants. (Cha Decl., Ex. B.)  The court reduces this entry by 1.2 hours. 

·         8.8 hours billed between July 16, 2024 to July 25, 2024 for preparing Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery.  (Cha Decl., Ex. B.)  The court reduces these entries by 4.4 hours. 

Total Time Reduced: 6.8 hours.

The court declines to apply Defendant’s request for a negative multiplier.  

B.     Costs and Expenses

Plaintiff seeks costs and expenses of $884.90.  Defendant does not challenge the costs.  However, because Plaintiff did not file a memorandum of costs, the court does not address the request for costs and expenses further.

III.        CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the sum of $16,900.00, and the additional sum of $1,500.00 for reviewing Defendant’s opposition and preparing a reply, for a total award of $18,400.00.  The court does not address Plaintiff’s request for costs, as Plaintiff did not file a memorandum of costs.

Plaintiff to give notice. 

Dated:   May 8, 2025