Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV39113, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39113    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 40

22STCV39113 Joseph Johnson, III, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America

Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

I.       BACKGROUND

      This action arises from alleged violations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”). On August 13, 2024, the court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $18,537.60 and a payoff of the prior balance owed of $6,606.00 and a payoff of the remaining balance of the lease totaling $43,648.10.

II.     ARGUMENTS

A.     Motion filed February 5, 2025.

      Plaintiffs argue that the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties having settled this case for the repurchase of the subject vehicle and payment of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs request fees of $42,152 plus a .3 multiplier of $12,645.60. for a total of $54,797.60 and costs of $1,356.75. Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendant to resolve the fee dispute, but Defendant refused to offer more than $15,000, which is 50 percent of fees and costs incurred.

      Defendant’s conduct increased the time necessary to settle the case by ignoring Plaintiff’s settlement demands, when Plaintiff sought less than $10,000 in fees.

      Plaintiffs' counsel billed 77.6 hours, and this matter dates back to November 2022. Plaintiffs took this case on a contingency basis and assumed the risk of loss of the costs and expenses advanced. Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to a multiplier because of the delay in payment. Plaintiffs request a .2 enhancement or $8,430.40. An additional .1 enhancement of $4,215.20 should be awarded for the quality of the settlement.

B.     Opposition filed May 2, 2025

      Defendant argues the request is unreasonable and excessive. Five attorneys and three paralegals billed a total of 77.6 hours for work done over a two-and-a-half-year period where minimal discovery work was done and no motion work was attempted. Only one of five attorneys submitted a declaration.  The court should disregard blocked and padded billing. The lodestar enhancement is overstated and unnecessary.

      Defendant contends there is no evidence of the rates Plaintiffs actually incurred, and nothing to support the high billing rates. Attorneys with only a couple of years in this field of law are billing more than seasoned attorneys.

      The court should exercise its discretion to cut 33 percent of the fees or alternatively, award no more than $13,367 in attorney’s fees  (or a .5 negative multiplier) because of the overbilling and unreasonableness of the hourly rates.

C.     Reply filed May 8, 2025.

      Defendant resorts to the usual barrage of ad hominem attacks. Defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. Defendant is attempting to reduce fees and costs by 70 percent. Only one declaration is required to support billing records in which multiple attorneys billed. The records are authenticated. Plaintiffs' counsel did not engage in block-billing, which is otherwise not objectionable in California. .

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

      A prevailing buyer in an action under the SBA “shall be allowed by the court” to recover 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 subd.(d).) A prevailing buyer has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount.
(Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 396, 405.) The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. (Id.)

      A reasonable fee can be measured by the marketplace by analyzing the quality and necessity of services and then comparing that cost with what other attorneys with similar experience and ability charge for the same services. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 1002.)

      In Song-Beverly cases, the court applies the lodestar method in calculating attorney’s fees, including the use of fee multipliers where applicable. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818.) The court determines a lodestar figure “based on a careful compilation of the actual time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney.” (Robertson at 819.) The lodestar may be augmented or diminished “by taking various relevant factors into account including (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, based on the uncertainty of prevailing on the merits and of establishing eligibility for the award.” (Robertson at 819.) The multiplier is a risk enhancement based on the probability of loss. (Robertson at 821.)  

      The prevailing party is entitled to “’compensation for all the hours reasonably spent” in litigating the action to a successful conclusion. (Ibid., italics in original.) ‘Reasonably spent’ means that time spent ‘in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.)

      The court may rely on his or her own experience and is given broad discretion in calculating reasonable attorney’s fees. (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.”].)

IV.   DISCUSSION

      Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 16, 2022. Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement on May 8, 2024. In the approximately 26 months that the parties litigated the case, the parties appeared for a Case Management Conference on May 10, 2023, and a Post-Mediation Status Conference on February 21, 2024.

      In that period, Plaintiffs served one set of written discovery, two deposition subpoenas, and took one deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable. (Jordan Sannipoli decl., ¶ 13-16.) The parties exchanged offers to compromise pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 998, made settlement demands and settlement proposals, and engaged in other efforts to settle over the course of twenty months and two weeks (March 15, 2023, December 5, 2024). The actual work on the case took approximately six months and resulted in a settlement requiring Defendant to repurchase the vehicle for $11,511.99 plus the loan pay off of $20,500. (Sannipoli decl., ¶ 43.)

      Plaintiffs required five different attorneys to prosecute this case, spending 65.6 attorney hours for a total fee request of $38,927.00 for a weighted hourly rate of $593.40. Plaintiffs expended 12 assistant hours for a total fee of $3,225.00.

      The case did not concern novel issues or protracted litigation warranting a team of five lawyers and three paralegal/assistants to prosecute. Plaintiffs’ request for a lodestar multiplier is DENIED.

      The court has reviewed the billing records and the declaration of Jordan K. Sannipoli. The following attorneys, their experience, hours billed, and hourly rates are as follows:

      The work of Mr. Meyers is block billed for a laundry list of tasks. Block billing is not objectionable per se unless it "exacerbate[s] the vagueness of counsel's fee request, a risky choice since the burden of proving entitlement to fees rests on the moving party.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1325.)  The court has discretion to reduce fee awards or deny them altogether where it is difficult to determine the reasonableness of time spent. Defense counsel must make an effort to “prune the fee request to comply with the law” and “may not transfer that responsibility to the court.” (Id. at 1329; Guillory v. Hill (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 802, 814–815 ["overinclusive, unculled, redundant, redacted, and padded billing  entries …  destroy[] the credibility of the submission and ... justifies] a severe reduction."

      The court cannot determine the reasonableness of the 8.2 hours spent and work performed, and therefore, it is excluded.     

      The work by Brian Bickel is duplicative of the work of Ms. Sannipoli, a partner, who directed most of the litigation and worked in concert with Sharona Silver, an associate. Mr. Bickel’s work is excluded. This leaves the remaining attorney’s fees incurred:

      The Court is permitted to make “across the board cuts and apply a negative multiplier” where it determines that the case was not complex. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 41 [permitting a negative multiplier of 33% to the lodestar fee request of $351,055.26, resulting in a fee award of $115,848.24].) Proper factors to consider in applying a negative reduction are the lack of complexity, that the matter did not go to trial, that name partners were doing work that could have been done by lower-billing attorneys, and that all the attorneys were doing work that could have been done by paralegals, thus applying a 39% reduction in the lodestar. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41.).

      The majority of the work performed concerned Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee. The lack of complexity of Song-Beverly issues, the fact that the amount of costs advanced appear relatively minimal ($1,356.75), and the duplicative and inefficient work between Ms. Sannipoli and Ms. Silver warrant a further reduction.

V.     CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, the court awards attorney’s fees of $25,350.00 and paralegal/assistant fees of $3,225.00 for a total award of $28,575.00.