Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV12635, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12635    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Attorney’s Fees for Time Actually Expended and Reasonably Incurred 

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Yuri Sukiasyan

Resp. Party:    Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd.

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part.

Attorneys’ fees and costs are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $36,240.96, which is comprised of $33,490.75 in attorneys’ fees and $2,750.21 in costs and expenses.

BACKGROUND:

On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff Yuri Sukiasyan filed his Complaint against Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Land Rover Encino (actual name Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd.) on causes of action involving the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

On May 26, 2022, Defendants filed their Answer.

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Attorney’s Fees for Time Actually Expended and Reasonably Incurred. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Costs; and (2) Proposed Order.

On April 18, 2023, Defendants filed their Opposition.

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (a).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (d).)

II.        Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff moves the Court to award Plaintiff $55,523.71, which comprises of $52,773.50 in lodestar attorney’s fees and $2,750.21 in costs and expenses. (Motion, p. 19:9–14.)

Among other things, Plaintiff argues: (1) that Plaintiff is the prevailing party; (2) that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable; (3) that the fee request is justified by the case and results achieved; (4) that Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the time to draft a fee motion; and (5) that Plaintiff is entitled to recover all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with this action. (Motion, pp. 11:18, 12:5, 12:24, 13:3, 17:1, 17:19, 18:17–18.) Plaintiff provides an exhibit that indicates 86.4 hours were spent by the various attorneys Plaintiff’s Counsel employs. (Motion, Exh. A.)

Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hours and base fees are excessive and should be reduced by the Court; and (2) that Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs should be taxed by the Court. (Opposition, pp. 3:5–6, 7:9–10.) Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party or that Plaintiff should be awarded fees and costs, but instead proposes that the total amount awarded should be no more than $34,571.64, comprised of $33,490.75 in fees and $1,080.89 in costs. (Id. at 7:22–24.)

Plaintiff reiterates his arguments in his Reply and responds to minor points made in the Opposition.

B.      Analysis

Both parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this litigation. Pursuant to the relevant sections of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the lodestar adjustment method. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137.)

The Court finds that the costs incurred are reasonable.

The Court does not find that all of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable. For example, Counsel Saeedian’s billing rate of $695.00 per hour seems excessive for this run-of-the-mill lemon law case. Similarly, 86.4 hours is excessive considering that this case began in April 2022, has not included a single motion (aside from this Motion), and was settled five months before trial.

Defendant concedes that $33,490.75 in fees would be the maximum appropriate attorney's fees.  (See Opposition, p. 7:5-8.)  Plaintiff disagrees, but states that any award of attorney's fees “should remain above this minimum amount conceded by Defendant as reasonable.”  (Reply, p. 1:11.)

The Court also notes that Defendant has spent $11,610.76 in attorney's fees on this case – just 1/3 of the amount Defendant’s state would be the maximum reasonable amount of attorney's fees. (See Reply, p.3:20.)  It is not uncommon for courts to compare opposing counsel’s fees to help determine whether the moving party’s fees are reasonable. That is because a “comparative analysis of each side’s respective litigation costs may be a useful check on the reasonableness of any fee request.”  (Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 273, 281, quoting Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272.) 

Considering all of the facts presented, the Court finds that a reasonable lodestar attorney's fees in this case is $33,490.75.

III.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part.

Attorneys’ fees and costs are AWARDED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $36,240.96, which is comprised of $33,490.75 in attorneys’ fees and $2,750.21 in costs and expenses.