Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV33829, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33829    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 1, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hyung Joon Park

Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,845.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $874.75 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.

The Court assumes the case has settled, though no notice of settlement has been filed. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a notice of settlement forthwith.

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2022 Genesis GV80, 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).)

Plaintiff asserts that the Law Offices of Alex Cha & Associates incurred $12,845.00 in fees and $874.75 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs request that the Court apply a 1.25 multiplier, for an additional $3,211.25 in fees. Plaintiffs seek $3,000.00 in fees to bring and defend this motion.

1. Multiplier

Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.25 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, 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. There is no basis for a multiplier.

2. Lodestar

Plaintiff seeks $12,845.00 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges between $350.00 and $500.00 per hour and spent 30.1 hours on this case over approximately one year. 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. The Court finds counsel’s fees reasonable.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in the amount of $15,845.00 ($12,845.00+$3,000.00) in attorney fees and $874.75 in costs.