Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2021-01209829, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs Gretchen Armstrong’s and Brian Hatheway’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Court AWARDS Plaintiffs Gretchen Armstrong and Brian Hatheway attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,745 and costs in the amount of $1,176.50, and ORDERS Defendant Ford Motor Company to pay the award of attorney’s fees and costs within 30 days of receiving the notice of ruling.

Plaintiffs Gretchen Armstrong and Brian Hatheway move for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiffs filed suit pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) and subsequently settled the matter with Defendant Ford Motor Company. Under the settlement, Plaintiffs received $21,106.17 for the repurchase of their vehicle. (Myers Decl. ¶ 64, Exh. L.)

Defendant also agreed to pay “Plaintiffs’ attorney's fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) in an amount determined by the Court by way of noticed motion to have been reasonably incurred by Plaintiffs in the commencement and prosecution of this action.” (Myers Decl., Exh. L, ¶ 2.)

Attorneys’ Fees

Civil Procedure Code section 1794(d) provides that a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act shall be allowed to recover 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).)

The plain wording of the statute requires the trial court to base the fee award on actual time expended on the case, as long as such fees are reasonably incurred – both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817.) Even if the plaintiff had a contingency fee arrangement, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees for the time reasonably expended by his or her attorney. (Id.) A prevailing party has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and were reasonable in amount. (Id. at 817-18.)

The lodestar method for calculating attorneys’ fees applies to any statutory attorneys’ fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1089; see also K.I. v. Wagner (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.) The lodestar method, including the use of fee multipliers, applies to attorneys’ fees awards under Section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Act. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th 785 at p. 821).

When determining a reasonable attorneys’ fees award using the lodestar method, the court begins by deciding the reasonable hours the prevailing party’s attorney spent on the case and multiplies that number by the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 998; see also Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dep’t of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 248.) The trial court may rely on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.)

The court has read and considered the declarations and contentions from Plaintiffs’ side and the declarations and contentions from Defendant’s side. Based on that review, the court finds that certain time expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel was duplicative, excessive, and/or unnecessary and does not award fees for that work, including several hours conducting file review, preparing routine correspondence, and undertaking administrative tasks. These include:

The court finds a rate of $600 per hour reasonable for Attorney Bickel, $500 per hour reasonable for Attorney Sannipoli, $400 per hour reasonable for Attorney Silver and Attorney Myers, and $150 per hour reasonable for the paralegals and legal assistants. Having reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s evidence, and having presided over numerous civil actions and attorney’s fees motions in this community, the court finds these hourly rates reasonable for attorneys in the community who conduct litigation of the same type as this case.

Applying the above hourly rates and eliminating entries for duplicative, excessive and/or unnecessary work, the court finds the following hours and rates reasonable:

The court declines to apply any multiplier as this was not an action that required extraordinary legal work nor did any delay in payment prejudice Plaintiff as the court calculated attorney’s fees based on current rates.

Costs

A prevailing party is normally entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, sub. (b); Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29-30.)

Defendant contends it was not reasonable for Plaintiffs’ counsel to demand depositions of dealerships who repaired Plaintiffs’ vehicle when there was no dispute over the buyback of Plaintiffs’ vehicle. However, the dealers had a significant connection to this action, and the depositions might have lead to admissible evidence and were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court finds Plaintiffs acted reasonably and awards costs in the requested amount of $1,176.50.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.