Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23STCV03664, Date: 2024-08-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03664 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 34
Orlando Baniaga et
a. v. KIA America, Inc. et al. (23STCV03664)
BACKGROUND:
On February 21, 2023, plaintiffs Orlando Baniaga and Ronie Soriano Rivera (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against defendants Kia America Inc., and Kia Downtown Los Angeles (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs alleged on July 26, 2021, they purchased a 2022 Kia Telluride (“subject vehicle”) and entered into a warranty contract for the subject vehicle. The vehicle suffered certain defects and did not conform to the manufacturer’s warranties including risk of fire when parked, a ticking noise, and media unit black outs. Defendants’ repair facility failed to remedy the defects after a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of warranties, violations of Song-Beverly and negligent repair.
On March 11, 2024, plaintiffs accepted a settlement offer in the amount of $66,000.00. (Declaration of Michael Saeedian [Saeedian Decl.], ¶25.) Plaintiffs do not attach the settlement agreement to the moving papers. They assert in the notice of motion that the settlement agreement permits them to proceed by way of a noticed motion pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (b) if the parties cannot reach an agreement as to attorneys’ fees. They did not.
Plaintiffs move for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $53,037.00 and costs in the amount of $4,104.25. The costs are comprised of: (1) $933.13 in filing and motion fees, (2) $172.08 in jury fees, (3) $2,254.95 in deposition costs, (4) $130 in service of process costs, $72.10 in electronic filing or service fees and (5) $541.99 in other costs.
Defendants oppose the requested attorneys’ fees, but not the costs.
SERVICE ISSUE
As a preliminary note, Defendants argue the motion was not timely served. It was.
Moving and supporting papers must be served at least 16 court days prior to the hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd. (b).) Under section 1010.6(a)(3)(B), electronic service adds an additional two days to the timing requirements.
Here, Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of service showing service via electronic transmission on June 18, 2024, to defendants in California. June 18, 2024, was a Tuesday. Since Plaintiffs used electronic transmission, and additional two days should have been added. The filing should have been served no later than June 14, 2024. However, on July 2, 2024, the court continued the hearing to August 27, 2024, and provided notice to both parties.
Service was timely.
ANALYSIS
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Legal Standard
A
prevailing plaintiff in a Song Beverly Act case is entitled 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.” (Civ. Code § 1794.) “As the plain
wording of section 1794, subdivision (d) makes clear, the trial court is ‘to
base the fee award upon 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.’ [Citation.] In the case of contingency fee arrangements, “a
prevailing buyer ... is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees for
time reasonably expended by his or her attorneys.” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of
N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal. App. 5th 240, 247.)
“Under
the lodestar adjustment methodology, the trial court must initially determine
the actual time expended and then ‘ascertain whether under all the
circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended and the monetary
charge being made for the time expended are reasonable.’ [Citation.] Factors to
be considered include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the case and
procedural demands, the attorney skill exhibited and the results achieved.
[Citation.] The prevailing party and fee applicant bears ‘the burden of showing
that the fees incurred were ... ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the
litigation,’ and were ‘reasonable in amount.’ [Citation.] It follows that if
the prevailing party fails to meet this burden, and the court finds the time
expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances, then the
court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.”
(Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal. App. 5th at 247.)
After
the lodestar is determined, the court in its discretion may, but is not
required to, apply a fee enhancement or multiplier. Plaintiffs do not seek an
enhancement.
Discussion
Here, the court has carefully considered the declaration of Michael Saeedian filed on June 18, 2024, and supplemental declaration filed on August 20, 2024. The court finds Defendants’ objections reasonably raised and finds a reduction of hours warranted for two reasons.
First, there are excessive hours billed for routine template-based documents, especially regarding drafting and responding to written discovery. While the court is not as familiar with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm, Plaintiffs’ counsel admittedly attests to his experience in this area of the law in his declaration. Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated many of the factual and legal issues in this area of the law which are the same from case to case. Indeed, this matter is substantially like many of the other cases handled by the office as shown by the fact that only 1.2 hours were spent reviewing the file and drafting the complaint in this case. The court applauds counsel for developing templates that apply to many other cases, using the templates where appropriate and for not reinventing the wheel with every motion. Nevertheless, the court concludes that counsel has still overbilled for discovery.
Second, it appears that counsel has billed for time spent on the motions to compel further that were never heard on the merits. When the motions came for hearing, the court took them off calendar for failure to comply with the court’s standing order. The court requires an informal discovery conference before discovery motions in a lemon law case. Plaintiffs did not thereafter refile the motion. Thus, a general reduction for time spent bringing non-compliant motion which was never refiled or heard on the merits is appropriate.
The court used a blended rate to calculate the reduction in fees from the loadstar amount by Plaintiffs. The court finds the blended hourly rates sought reasonable. The rates, ranging from $250 to $695, give rise to an approximate blended rate of $455. (Saeedian Supp. Decl., ¶29.) Considering the aforementioned issues, the court finds a reduction of 20 hours is appropriate, resulting in a total award of $42,087.50.
Defendants do not object to the costs. Costs are awarded as requested.
Accordingly, the motion is granted in part.