Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21GDCV01149, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV01149 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a lemon law case. Plaintiffs
Webster Watson and Celino Catindig sue Defendants General Motors, LLC (GM) and
Camino Real Chevrolet under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for alleged
defects with their 2020 Chevrolet Traverse. Following a year of litigation, GM
served Plaintiffs with a statutory Section 998 offer to compromise, which Plaintiffs
accepted.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’
motion for an order setting the reasonable amount of their fees and costs. As
explained further below, the Court finds that the hourly rates charged and the
total hours expended were reasonable and awards fees in full, but without a
multiplier. Costs are awarded in the amount requested as well.
II. LEGAL
STANDARD
Civ. Code §1794 (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.
III. ANALYSIS
The brief history of this case is that it was filed in September
2021 and settled in September 2022. During that year, GM propounded discovery
on Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs provided responses, the parties engaged in mediation,
Plaintiffs propounded discovery, the parties participated in a settlement
conference, and GM served Plaintiffs with a §998 offer which they accepted. The settlement provides for either the
recovery of $15,000 in fees and costs or, at Plaintiffs’ election, fees and
costs reasonably incurred pursuant to Civ. Code §1794(d) as determined by the
Court. Plaintiffs chose to file this motion.
A. Fees
Plaintiffs were represented in this case by The Ledbetter
Law Firm, and in particular Thomas K. Ledbetter. According to the Declaration
of Thomas K. Ledbetter offered in support of this motion, the Ledbetter Firm
specializes in lemon law cases. In its opposition brief GM acknowledges as
much, noting that it has frequently defended lawsuits filed by this firm. One
argument GM makes in opposition is that the Ledbetter firm has somewhat
“canned” discovery responses, and that it should not therefore be entitled to
recover for all the time it billed for responding to discovery. But the
Ledbetter firm’s response makes sense: it would have taken even longer to
provide discovery responses if it had not already crafted certain responses
that it can tailor to a particular case. GM argues that the litigation has
consisted almost entirely of Plaintiffs’ templated discovery responses and
settlement discussions. But according to the billing records, Plaintiffs’
counsel has expended altogether only 57.2 hours on this work, including time
spent on drafting the current motion and anticipated time for a reply and
appearance. That amounts to less than a week and a half of work if this were
the only case counsel were working on.
GM challenges other aspects of Ledbetter’s billing as
well. For example, GM urges that Plaintiffs should not recover for the time
their attorney spent on pre-filing investigation of the claims or on drafting
the retainer agreement. GM cites Hensley
v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424, 429, and argues that hours not properly
billed to a client are also not properly billed to one’s adversary. That rule
was stated in the context of excluding hours not “reasonably” expended on
litigation, such as where a case is overstaffed or where a plaintiff is only
partially successful. But time spent investigating a claim before filing (a
total of 1.2 hours) appears reasonable, as is the less than half hour spent
drafting the retainer agreement.
Plaintiffs request fees of $23,177.50, plus a 1.5
multiplier for a total of $34,766.25. The fee request is supported by the
Declaration of Thomas K. Ledbetter, who provides sufficient details about his
own education, training, and experience to support his hourly rate of $400 in
2021 and $425 in 2022, as well as the $350 hourly rate of Nicole Nemeth. The
$250 hourly rate for certified paralegal Keily Delius is also reasonable. Plaintiffs
cite other lemon law cases where similar hourly rates were found to be
reasonable and were approved. GM provides evidence that another Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge reduced the firm’s hourly rates. Based on the evidence
provided, the Court finds that the hourly rates charged are reasonable.
As the hourly rates are reasonable and the total hours
spent are reasonable, fees are approved in the amount of $23,177.50.
Plaintiffs request a 1.5 multiplier, which would bring
the fee award to $34,766.25. The factors to be considered before applying a
multiplier include the following: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent
to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the
attorneys; (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, both from the point of
view of eventual victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing
eligibility for an award; (4) the fact that an award against the state would
ultimately fall upon the taxpayers; (5) the fact that the attorneys in question
received public and charitable funding for the purpose of bringing law suits of
the character here involved; (6) the fact that the monies awarded would inure
not to the individual benefit of the attorneys involved but the organizations
by which they are employed.” Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Ketchum
v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132. Here, the only factor Plaintiffs rely
on to support a multiplier is the contingent nature of the fee award. The Court
declines to apply a multiplier based on this sole factor in this case. Arguably,
counsel are entitled to a fee enhancement based on their skill in this
specialized area; but as Ledbetter makes clear, that has already been factored
in when the hourly rates are set.
In addition, as Judge Seigle found in the Murphy vs.
General Motors case, this action does not involve complex or novel issues
that warrant a multiplier. (See
Ledbetter Declaration, Exhibit 4, p. 4.)
For
all these reasons, the request for a multiplier is denied.
B. Costs
Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of litigation expenses in
the sum of $1,782.33. Ledbetter Declaration, ¶6 and Exhibit 2 thereto. GM
attacks certain of these expenses, urging that it should not have to pay $169.40
for the jury fees Plaintiffs posted, $75 for service of process on Camino Real,
$61.56 for a discovery motion that never took place, and $113.40 for the cost
of reserving, e-filing, and providing a courtesy copy of the present motion. None
of these arguments have merit. Plaintiffs were required to post jury fees to
preserve their right to a jury trial. And as already discussed, they are
entitled to recover the cost of this motion. And to the extent GM has agreed to
indemnify Camino Real as Plaintiffs explain, Plaintiffs should be able to
recover this expense from GM.
However, Plaintiffs’ request for a multiplier on their
costs is not supported by any legal authority and is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs are awarded fees in the amount of $23,177.50
and costs in the amount of $1,782.33 for a total of $24,959.83. GM is ordered
to pay this amount within 60 days.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT