Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09279, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09279    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 26, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Plaintiff Erick Morales Moscoso

Responding Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,737.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $2,948.79 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 the purchase of a 2018 Ford Fusion manufactured and distributed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and negligent repair.

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 the Knight Law Group, LLP incurred $22,737.00 in fees and $2,948.79 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, for an additional $11,368.50 in fees.

1. Multiplier

Plaintiff asks 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 fees if, among other reasons, 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 exceptional skill. This is a standard lemon law action. There is no basis for a multiplier.

2. Lodestar

Plaintiff seeks $22,737.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges between $295.00 and $550.00 per hour and spent 60.8 hours on this case over approximately one year. 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 counsel’s billing entries excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant are so egregious to warrant being reduced. The Court finds that counsel’s fees are reasonable.

3. Costs

Defendant requests the Court strike costs not authorized under CCP § 1033.5. The Song-Beverly Act allows a consumer to recover costs and “expenses” outside of CCP § 1033.5.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in the amount of $22,737.00 in attorney fees and $2,948.79 in costs.