Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV36283, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV36283    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 Paul Lopez and Audelia Lopez

Responding Party: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

T/R:    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $101,903.00.

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 lease and purchase of a 2013 Kia Optima manufactured and distributed by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. Plaintiffs Paul Lopez and Audelia Lopez brought this action for breach of the express and implied warranty, violations of the Song-Beverly Act, and fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation.

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 $110,659.50 in fees and $28,940.69[1] in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in a total award of $194,929.94.

           1. Multiplier

           Plaintiffs ask 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 $110,659.50 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $200.00 and $595.00 per hour and spent 313.3 hours on this case over approximately three years. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees are unreasonable because counsel artificially increased fees by engaging in unnecessary litigation. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs may not recover fees incurred to prosecute the cause of action for fraud.

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs are not entitled to fees for work spent of the fraud cause of action. Plaintiffs’ hours defending the motions attacking the fraud causes of action are easily apportioned. Plaintiff’s counsel incurred fees in the amount of $8,756.50 (30.2 hrs) opposing these motions. These fees are not recoverable.

           The Court does not take issue with counsel’s remaining hours. This action lasted three years, involved significant motion work, and resulted in a favorable settlement for Plaintiffs. The Court finds counsel’s fees reasonable.

           Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $101,903.00.