Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV14559, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14559    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 14, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Plaintiff Amiel Tabanpour

Responding Party: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,187.50 IN FEES AND $581.10 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 2022 Audi E-Tron from Defendant Volkswagen.

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 Abraham Law, PC incurred $35,187.50 in fees and $581.10 in costs to prosecute this action. Plaintiff requests that the Court apply a 1.5 multiplier, for an additional $17,593.75 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 particular skill. This is a standard lemon law action. There is no basis for a multiplier.

2. Lodestar

Plaintiff seeks $35,187.50 in fees for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff’s counsel charges $625.00 per hour and spent 56.3 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 to be excessive. None of the entries cited by Defendant are so egregious as to warrant being reduced. The Court finds that counsel’s fees are reasonable.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in the amount of $35,187.50 in fees and $581.10 in costs.