Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV47611, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47611    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 21, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees;

Motion to Tax Costs

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $133,093.00.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED.

            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 2018 Honda Clarity manufactured and distributed by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

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 $133,093.00 in fees and $38,537.94 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, resulting in a total award of $238,177.44.

            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, 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 any exceptional skill. This is a standard lemon law action; nothing about it warrants a multiplier.

            2. Lodestar

            Plaintiffs seek $133,093.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiffs’ counsel charges between $175.00 and $500.00 per hour and spent 360.5 hours on this case over approximately two years. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel’s rates are excessive. Defendant also argues that hours related to intraoffice communications, the instant motion, and block bills are inflated.

The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable. 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 two years, included discovery motions, vehicle inspections, mediation, and trial preparation, and resulted in a favorable settlement for Plaintiffs. The Court finds that counsel’s fees reasonable.

            Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $133,093.00.

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 costs for service of process, experts, and models, court reporting fees and “other” costs. Defendant asserts that the only necessary deposition in this case was that of Defendant’s PMK, and the expert and remaining “other” costs were not necessary for the litigation.

The Court declines to strike deposition and service of process costs; they are explicitly allowed as costs under CCP § 1033.5. Similarly, Plaintiffs in lemon law cases may recover more costs and expenses than in a standard civil action, including expert fees and court reporter fees. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 174.) And the Court finds that Plaintiff’s “other” costs, consisting of e-filing fees, messenger fees, mediation fees and travel fees are reasonable. Plaintiff incurred these costs to prosecute this action, prepare for trial, and participate in mediation.

Defendant’s motion to tax costs is DENIED.