Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV30213, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV30213    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 18, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

Moving Party: Plaintiff Henry Chan 

Responding Party: Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. 

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,245.00. 

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 Tesla Model S manufactured and distributed by Defendant Tesla. The case settled upon acceptance of and offer under Code of Civil Procedure § 998.

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 moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,245.00, which includes $8,745.00 in attorney’s fees and additional $1,500.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s opposition draft the reply and attend the hearing on this motion. Counsel represents that 15.9 hours at $550.00 per hour were spent prosecuting this action up until accepting Defendant’s CCP § 998 offer. 

In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is not the prevailing party because Plaintiff did not achieve his litigation objectives by accepting $3,500.00 settlement for a vehicle for which he paid $122,000.00. Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(4) defines a “prevailing party” as the party with a net monetary recovery. Plaintiff has received a net monetary recovery and is the prevailing party.  

Defendant also argues that counsel’s hours are unreasonable. The Court 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 $10,245.00.