Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV10849, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10849    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 18, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees;

Motion to Tax Costs

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,242.50.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2014 Land Rover Range Rover Sport, manufactured and distributed by Defendant Land Rover North America, LLC. On October 27, 2022, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff after trial.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The Song-Beverly Act provides, “[i]f 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.” (Civ. Code § 1794(d).)

Plaintiff asserts that the Knight Law Group incurred $195,242.50 in fees and $60,217.87 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in a total award of $353,081.62.

            1. Multiplier

            Plaintiff asks the Court to apply a 1.5 multiplier to counsel’s fees due to the novelty, difficulty, and skill displayed in the case and the contingent nature of the case. The Court is permitted, but not required, to apply a multiplier to an award for attorney’s if, for example, there was contingent risk or exceptional skill displayed by the attorneys. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138.) In applying a multiplier for contingent risk, “the trial court should consider whether, and to what extent, the attorney and client have been able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment…” (Id.) There is no evidence that this case involved anything novel, nor did it require particular skill or risk. The Court declines to award a multiplier.

            2. Lodestar

            Plaintiffs seek $195,242.50 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $175.00 and $595.00 per hour and spent 521.3 hours on this case over approximately four years. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are unreasonable as counsel’s hourly rates are excessive and improperly include inflated hours related to intraoffice communications \as well as block bills. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates. The Court also does not find that counsel’s billing entries are excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant is so egregious to warrant being reduced. This action lasted four years, included discovery motions, vehicle inspections, mediation, jury trial, and post judgment motions. The Court finds that counsel’s fees are reasonable.

            Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $195,242.50.

B. Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  (CCP § 1032(b).)  “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”  (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).)  “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.”  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774.)  “On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.”  (Ibid.)

Defendant moves to strike filing fees, deposition costs, service of process costs, expert costs, court report fees, and “other” costs from Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs. Plaintiff has provided support for many of these costs in opposition; the Court will allow recovery of supported costs. The remaining issues are discussed by Defendant in reply.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has miscalculated court reporter fees and trial transcript costs. The Court will strike the costs to the extent they are miscalculated. The Court will also strike the court reporter fees and filing fees associated with Plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion to compel.

Defendant argues that the expert witness fees and travel fees are excessive. The Court declines to strike these costs. Plaintiffs in lemon law cases may recover more costs and expenses than in a standard civil action. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 174.)

The Court declines to strike deposition costs as they are explicitly allowed as costs per CCP § 1033.5.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is GRANTED in part.