Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV22250, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22250    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Myesha M. Smith

Responding Party: Defendant American Honda Motor Company

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,244.00 IN FEES AND $12,801.68 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 out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2019 Honda Odyssey manufactured and distributed by Defendant American Honda 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).)

Plaintiff asserts that Strategic Legal Practices, APC incurred $112,844.00 in fees and $12,801.68 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.35 multiplier, for an additional $39,495.40 in fees. Plaintiff seeks $3,500.00 in fees to bring and defend this motion.

            1. Multiplier

            Plaintiff asks 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 particular skill. This is a standard lemon law action; nothing about it warrants a multiplier.

            2. Lodestar

            Plaintiff seeks $112,844.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges between $385.00 and $595.00 per hour and spent 238.40 hours on this case over approximately two years. Defendant argues that counsel’s hourly rates are excessive, and the number of hours spent are unreasonable and include duplicative and block billed entries. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates. The Court also does not find that counsel’s billing entries are 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.

            Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in the amount of $116,244.00 ($112,844.00 +$3,500.00) in fees and $12,801.68 in costs.