Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV41641, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41641    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

Moving Party:          Plaintiffs Han Moon and Susan Moon (“Plaintiffs”)

Resp. Party:             Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”)

Plaintiffs Han Moon and Susan Moon’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses is CONTINUED until ___________.   Plaintiff’s declaration and Excel Spreadsheet (see § II(B), infra) shall be filed and served by ___________; Defendant’s response shall be filed and served by ___________.

I.           BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs Han Moon and Susan Moon filed a Complaint against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. alleging the following causes of action:

1.           Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty

2.           Violation of the Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty

3.           Violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2

4.           Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment

On July 25, 2022, The Honorable Michael P. Linfield, Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court, signed the Judgment following a jury trial in this case. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs Han Moon and Susan Moon shall recover from Defendant American Honda Motor Co. a total judgment in the amount of $56,392.73 in damages with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of entry of this judgment until paid. (Judgment on Jury Verdict, p. 2:6-9.)

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs moved the Court “as the prevailing party pursuant to the verdict at trial entered against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. . . . and in favor of Plaintiffs on June 23, 2022.” (Motion, p. i:6-8.) Plaintiffs requested attorneys’ fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $232,248.00.  Plaintiffs also requested a “modest lodestar” enhancement of 0.5, in the amount of $116,124.00, for a total of $348,372.00 as the attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs also moved this Court for reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of $40,215.77. The total amount requested by Plaintiff’s motion is $388,587.77. (Motion, p. i:10-15.)

On August 3, 2022, AHM opposed Plaintiffs’ motion.

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs replied to AHM’s opposition.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134. “In determining what constitutes a reasonable attorney fee when a contract or statute provides for such an award, courts should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, and the skill required and success of the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience in the particular type of work demanded, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed.” Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168.

“If 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).)

“Except as provided by statute or agreement, each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay their own attorney’s fees.” (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 750.) During statutory fee-shifting cases, when the prevailing party is statutorily authorized to recover their attorney’s fees from the losing party, the lodestar method is the primary method for establishing the recoverable fee amount. (Id.) The basic fee for comparable legal services in a community is called the lodestar; adjustment of this figure by the Court is based on factors including issue novelty/ difficulty, skill in legal presentation, the extent to which litigation precludes other attorney employment, and the contingent nature of the fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The “‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’”” (Id.) Once a party establishes that they are entitled to attorney’s fees the lodestar is the presumed analytical starting point to determine the appropriate amount. (K.I. v. Wagner (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.)

The lodestar method applies to an award of attorney's fees under CC § 1794(d) in an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 246-248.) “Under the lodestar adjustment methodology, the trial court must initially determine the actual time expended and then “ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended, and the monetary charge being made for the time expended are reasonable.”” (Id.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing for private attorneys in the community conducting non-contingent litigation of the same type.” (Glaviano, 22 Cal.App.5th at 751.) “‘[I]t is inappropriate and an abuse of a trial court's discretion to tie an attorney fee award to the amount of the prevailing buyer/plaintiff's damages or recovery in a Song-Beverly Act action.’” [Citations.] A “rule of proportionality” would make it difficult for individuals with meritorious consumer rights claims to obtain redress from the courts when they cannot expect a large damages award. [Citation.]” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 35, as modified (Oct. 11, 2019), review denied (Jan. 2, 2020).)

The court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. [Citation.] “Affidavits of the plaintiffs' attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) Trial courts enjoy discretion to increase or decrease the amount of attorney's fees they award pursuant to the lodestar adjustment method. Such adjustment is known as a “fee enhancement” or “multiplier.” (Mikhaeilpoor, 48 Cal.App.5th at 247.) “The Supreme Court has set forth a number of factors the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar figure. These include: (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; [and] (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, both from the point of view of eventual victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an award.” (Id. at 248 [cleaned up].)

B.          Discussion

Plaintiffs’ motion references “numerous court orders confirming the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ counsels’ hourly rates and time billed in other Song-Beverly Act cases in Los Angeles County.” (Motion, MPA, p. 9:15-17; Kirnos Decl., ¶¶ 41-99, Exs. D-JJJ.) Plaintiffs refer to multiple cases in which a Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted 94%, 99% or 100% of the attorney’s fees requested. (Kirnos Decl., ¶¶ 41-43, 46-48, 50, 52, 55, 58, 60, 61, 64, 66, Exs. D-F, I-K, M, O, R, U, W, X, AA, CC.)

Plaintiffs apparently believe that what other Los Angeles Superior Court judges have awarded on other attorney's fees requests on other Lemon Law cases is relevant; otherwise, they would not have filed scores of exhibits and spent dozens of paragraphs detailing this information for the Court.  The Court is not sure whether this information is relevant or not, but it is concerned that the information presented to the Court may be “cherry-picked” and is not representative of all the rulings by LASC judges in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s cases.  After all, “a selective recitation of facts . . .  [can be] just as misleading as a complete fabrication.” (Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.)

Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by the Managing Partner of Knight Law Group, LLP, that includes a listing of every Song-Beverly case in which Knight Law Group, LLP has represented plaintiff(s) before any judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court and in which an attorney's fees motion has been decided by the judge at the conclusion of the case.  Only those cases in which the attorney's fees motion was decided from January 1, 2015 to the present need be included. 

The Court requests the following information about each case:

1.           Name of Case

2.           Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number

3.           Name of Assigned Judge

4.           Date of Attorney's Fees Award

5.           Amount of Attorney’s Fees (Lodestar) Requested

6.           Amount of Attorney’s Fees (Lodestar) Granted

7.           Percentage of Requested Attorney’s Fees Granted

8.           Multiplier Requested

9.           Multiplier Granted

10.       Percentage of Requested Multiplier Granted

11.       Total Attorney's Fees Requested

12.       Total Attorney's Fees Granted

13.       Percentage of Requested Total Attorney's Fees Granted.

The Court further orders that this information should appear in a chart attached to the declaration. The chart should have 13 columns; each column should be titled as indicated above. Plaintiffs’ counsel must also provide the Court with a separate Excel spreadsheet that details the required information with column headers as described above. (The Court also orders that a courtesy copy of the Excel Spreadsheet be provided the Court on a flash drive at the time the declaration is filed.)

As a matter of due process, Defendant will be allowed to submit a response to Plaintiff’s declaration if it chooses to do so.

III.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Han Moon and Susan Moon’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses is CONTINUED until ___________.   Plaintiff’s declaration and Excel Spreadsheet (see § II(B), supra) shall be filed and served by ___________; Defendant’s response shall be filed and served by ___________.