Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: VC067400, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: VC067400    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: SEC

HERNANDEZ v. FORD MOTOR COPMANY

CASE NO.:  VC067400

HEARING:  12/20/22 @ 9:30 AM

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Hernandez’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in part.  Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the sum of $26,442.50 and costs in the sum of $4,498.19.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Hernandez moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $68,289.00 plus costs of $4,923.19.

Prevailing Party

“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.”  (CC § 1794(d).)

Here, Plaintiff contends that he prevailed because he obtained monetary recovery through the settlement.

In opposition, Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s prevailing party status.  Instead, Defendant disputes the reasonableness of the fees.  Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under CC § 1794.

Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)  Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.  (Id. at 48, n.23.) 

Plaintiff attaches the firm’s billing records for attorney and paralegal services, totaling 147.80 hours.  (Cohen Decl., Ex. K.) 

The hourly rates for the attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Jessica Anvar ($500); (2) Benjamin Beck ($490); (3) Jordan G. Cohen ($510); (4) Rodney Gi ($450-475); and Matt Xie ($350). (Cohen Decl., ¶¶ 14-18.)  The court finds that Xie’s hourly rate is reasonable.  The court finds Anvar, Beck, Cohen, and Gi’s hourly rates are excessive, and sets Anvar, Beck, and Cohen’s hourly rates at $450 and Gi’s hourly rate at $350, which are commensurate with counsels’ experience in the area of lemon law.

The court has reviewed the Billing Record submitted as Exhibit K to Cohen’s declaration, line by line, and finds that counsel’s hours are excessive.  Reasonable hours expended should be: 

Anvar @ $450:      3.9     =        $1,755

Gi @ $350:           47.50 =        $16,625

Xie @ $350:          3.75   =        $1,312.50

Cohen @ $450:     13.50 =        $6,075

Beck @ $450:       1.5     =        $675

Therefore, the lodestar calculations total $26,442.50.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the sum of $26,442.50.

Costs

Plaintiff has withdrawn costs associated with the Airport Marina Ford depositions, and amends his request for costs totaling $4,923.19.  That request will be further reduced by $425 for court reporter costs, which this court finds was not necessary to conduct this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs in the sum of $4,498.19.