Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV14155, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV14155    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 12, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Enrique Rodriguez Vasquez and Maricela Vasquez

Responding Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,768 IN FEES AND $7,797.55 IN COSTS.

           PLAINTIFFS 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 out of the purchase by Plaintiffs Enrique Rodriguez Vasquez and Maricela Vasquez of a used 2013 Ford Explorer, manufactured and distributed by Defendant Ford Motor Company.

ANALYSIS

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).)

Plaintiffs assert that the Knight Law Group incurred $40,768.00 in fees and $7,797.55 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in a total award of $68,949.55.

           1. Multiplier

           Plaintiffs request 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, among other matters, 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. This is a standard lemon law action and nothing about it warrants a multiplier.

           2. Lodestar

           Plaintiffs seek $40,768 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $200.00 and $500.00 per hour and spent 113.4 hours on this case over approximately three years. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are unreasonable because counsel’s hourly rates are excessive and improperly include inflated hours related to clerical tasks and to the instant motion. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates; they are reasonable for this type of case in this market. The Court also does not find that counsel’s billing entries are excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant are so egregious to warrant being reduced. This action lasted three years, involved significant motion work and resulted in a favorable settlement for Plaintiffs. The Court finds counsel’s fees reasonable.

           3. Costs

           Defendant asserts Plaintiffs should not recover any costs because they failed to provide evidence to support their costs. The memorandum of costs contains detailed breakdowns of costs. This is sufficient to prove initial entitlement to costs.

           Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in the amount of $40,768 in fees and $7,797.55 in costs.