Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV10749, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10749    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 28, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jaime Beltran Ortiz

Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $94,638.50 IN FEES AND $29,784.77 IN COSTS.

PLAINTIFF 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 from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Hyundai Kona, manufactured and distributed by Defendant. On August 18, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

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).)

Plaintiff asserts that Strategic Legal Practices incurred $94,638.50 in fees and $43,659.77 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.35 multiplier, for an additional $33,123.48 in fees. Plaintiff requests $4,000.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s opposition, draft the reply, and attend the hearing on this motion.

1. Multiplier

Plaintiff requests the Court 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 unique skill. This is a standard lemon law action. There is no basis for a multiplier.

2. Lodestar

Plaintiff seeks $94,638.50 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges between $595.00 per hour and $325.00 per hour and spent 199.90 hours on this case over approximately four years. Defendant argues that counsel’s hours 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 that counsel’s billing entries are excessive. The Court has reviewed the challenged entries, such as time spent to draft and revise the complaint and other documents and pleadings, and time spent at hearings. None of the entries cited by Defendant is so egregious to warrant being reduced. The Court finds counsel’s fees reasonable.

3. Costs

Plaintiff seeks $43,659.77 in costs. In opposition, Defendant takes issue with the necessity of certain costs and points out that the $13,875.00 cost for arbitration was refunded. In reply, Plaintiff concedes that the cost was refunded and seeks costs in the reduced amount of $29,784.77. The Court finds that the remaining costs are reasonable.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in the amount of $94,638.50 in fees and $29,784.77 in costs.