Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19NWCV00880, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT SE-C LAW & MOTION PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS: APPEARANCES: The Court will hear oral arguments on all matters at the scheduled time of hearing. If all counsel intend to submit on the Tentative Order and do not want oral argument, please advise the clerk, in Department “C”, by calling (562-345-3702). If all sides submit on the Tentative Order and the clerk is so advised, the Tentative Order will become the final order of the court and the prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. If the Moving and Responding parties do not agree to submit on the Tentative Order, the motion will be called as calendared for hearing. There is no need to contact Department “C”, as the matter will remain on calendar for hearing. If the Moving party does not call Department “C” to submit on the Tentative Order and there is no appearance by any party, then the motion(s), at the Court’s discretion, may be taken off calendar without ruling on the motion(s). ORDERS: The minute order reflecting the Court’s Order will constitute the final Order. No additional orders should be submitted to the Court for signature unless required by law or by the Court. Prevailing party shall give written Notice of Ruling per CRC 3.1312. Minute orders, which constitute the final Order of the Court, will only be sent to the parties via U.S. mail  for the following: OSC re: sanctions, OSC re: contempt or matters taken under submission after oral arguments or briefing. Counsel or parties may request copies of all other minute orders/final orders either at the clerk’s office or in writing. If a request is in writing, a self-addressed stamped envelope and the appropriate fee for copies shall be submitted.

Case Number: 19NWCV00880    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: SEC

CAMPOS v. FCA US LLC

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00880

HEARING:  10/20/22

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $35,915.50 to be paid by no later than 60 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Moving Party to give notice.

The relevant procedural history of this case is as follows: This lemon law action was filed on November 15, 2019. The parties exchanged about two rounds of discovery, including supplemental responses. Plaintiff’s deposition, an inspection of the Subject Vehicle, and a deposition of Defendant and dealership personnel occurred. A Notice of Settlement was filed on June 22, 2022.  

Cal. Civ. Code §1794(d) states, “[i]f the buyer prevails in an action under [the Song Beverly Act], 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 attorneys 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.”

Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action, and is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. The only issue pending before this Court is the amount of the award.

The matter of reasonableness of a party’s attorney fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Bruckman v. Parliament Escrow Co. (1989) 190 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1062.) When assessing the amount of any attorney’s fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of (1) time reasonably spent and (2) the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (“Serrano III”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); (See also Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation).  Normally, a “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) That amount may then be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) The Court is vested with discretion to determine which claimed hours were reasonably spent, and what an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501); (See also Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1987) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 644.) [“We readily acknowledge the discretion of the trial judge to determine the value of professional services rendered in his or her court.”].

Plaintiff’s Motion seeks attorney’s fees based on 103.2 hours spent by the attorneys litigating this case, which comes out to: (1) $42,532.50; (2) $1,995.00 for fees incurred in drafting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees; (3) plus an additional $5,000.00 for Plaintiffs’ counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition, draft the Reply brief, and attend the hearing on this Motion. (Total = $49,527.50)

The hourly rates sought by Plaintiff range from $400/hr.-$415/hr. for Attorneys; and $175/hr. for a Paralegal. A “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexier (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1064, 1095.) The Court finds that Defendant’s hourly rates are reasonable.  

Plaintiff has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the amount of $35,915.50. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether or not rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.) The Court reduces Defendant’s claimed hours as follows:

·        A reduction of $4,000.00. $5,000.00 to draft, revise, and prepare the Reply brief and attend the hearing on this matter is excessive and unreasonable.

·        A reduction of 4.4 hours at $400/hr. for drafting dealer depos on 01/26/21. This entry is vague and duplicative.

·        A reduction of .2 hours at $400/hr. for receipt of confidential documents on February 12, 2021. This entry is vague and excessive.

·        A reduction of .3 hours at $400/hr. for receipt of pmq meet and confer on 03/16/21 as duplicative.

·        A reduction of .9 hours at $435/hr. for Edits to Associate’s repair chron and MSC brief; email to associate re. the same on June 2, 2021 as duplicative and excessive.

·        A reduction of .8 hours at $415/hr. for Review documents, prepare repair chronology; Draft and revise Repair Order Chronology on June 2, 2021 as duplicative and excessive.

·        A reduction of 1.7 hours at $415/hr. for Draft and Revise Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMQ Deposition on June 22, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of .7 hours at $415/hr. for Continue drafting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMQ Depo on June 23, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of .6 hours at $415/hr. for Review and revise Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMQ Deposition. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of 4.2 hours at $435/hr. for Review and revisions to MTC PMQ on June 24, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of 2 hours at $415/hr. for the drafting, reviewing, and revising Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMQ Deposition on June 24, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of 2.1 hours at $415/hr. for Draft and revise Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Compel PMQ on August 2, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of .9 hours at $435/hr. for Review and Revisions to Reply re: MTC PMQ on August 3, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of 1 hour at $415/hr. for Reviewing and revising Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to Compel PMQ on August 3, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of .6 hours at $435/hr. for Outlining arguments for hearing re: MTC PMQ on August 9, 2021.

·        A reduction of .7 hours at $435/hr. for Appearance at hearing on Plaintiff’s MTC PMQ Depo on August 10, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.

·        A reduction of 1.8 hours at $435/hr. for Preparation for oral argument at P’s MTC PMQ hearing on August 10, 2021. This Motion was denied, and sanctions were issued against Plaintiff.   

The Court declines to award any lodestar multiplier to these attorney’s fees based upon the relative non-complexity of this routine lemon law case.

Accordingly, the Court grants attorney fees in the reduced, but reasonable, amount of $35,915.50.