Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV11535, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11535    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 9, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs;

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: Plaintiff Daniel Meza

Responding Party: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,792.50 IN FEES AND $13,848.98 IN COSTS.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS DENIED.

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 2022 Honda Accord manufactured and distributed by Defendant Honda. Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and fraudulent concealment.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Attorney’s Fees

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 Knight Law Group incurred $85,792.50 in fees and $13,848.98 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, for an additional $42,896.25 in fees.

1. Multiplier

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

2. Lodestar

Plaintiff seeks $85,792.50 in fees to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges between $145.00 and $575.00 per hour and spent 193.5 hours on this case over approximately two 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. 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

Plaintiff seeks $13,848.98 in costs, which include expert fees. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover fees not specifically allowed by statute. The Song-Beverly Act allows a prevailing party to recover all expenses, including those not traditionally allowed. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112.)

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in the amount of $85,792.50 in fees and $13,848.98 in costs.

B. Motion to Enforce Settlement

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (CCP § 664.6.)

Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement between the parties, requiring Defendant pay Plaintiff $55,000.00 and to accept surrender of the vehicle. In opposition, Defendant represents that the settlement payment and vehicle surrender process are underway. As Defendant is attempting to comply with the settlement in good faith, the Court declines to enforce the settlement and enter judgment at this time.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.