Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV15812, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15812    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Lynn Sahakian and Christopher Sahakian

Responding Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,380.00 IN FEES AND $17,922.47 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 Plaintiffs Lynn Sahakian and Christopher Sahakian’s purchase of a 2008 Ford Escape, 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 $57,380.00 in fees and $17,922.47 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in a total award of $103,992.47.

            1. Multiplier

            Plaintiffs request the Court 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, inter alia, 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; it does not warrant a multiplier.

            2. Lodestar

            Plaintiffs seek $57,380.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $200.00 and $595.00 per hour and spent 173.4 hours on this case over approximately three 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 clerical tasks and the instant motion. The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable and appropriate. The Court also does not find counsel’s billing entries excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant warrant being reduced. This action lasted three years 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 $57,380.00 in fees and $17,922.47 in costs.