Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV40223, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40223    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 26, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Marcelo Olivas and Rosalinda Olivas

Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,653.00.

            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 Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2013 Hyundai Accent manufactured and distributed by Defendant Hyundai Motor America.

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 Strategic Legal Practices, APC incurred $41,153.00 in fees and $2,453.05 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.35 multiplier, for an additional $14,403.55 in fees. Plaintiffs seek $3,500.00 in fees to bring and defend this motion.

            1. Multiplier

            Plaintiffs ask the Court to apply a 1.35 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; nothing about it warrants a multiplier.

            2. Lodestar

            Plaintiffs seek $41,153.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $325.00 and $610.00 per hour and spent 92.40 hours on this case over approximately two years. Defendant argues that counsel’s fees are unreasonable and counsel’s hourly rates are excessive. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates. The Court also does not find counsel’s billing entries excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant are so egregious to warrant being reduced. This action lasted two years, included motion work, discovery and trial preparation, 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 amount of $44,653.00 ($41,153.00+$3,500.00). Defendant has filed a separate motion to tax costs.