Soghrat Khorsandi v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Soghrat Khorsandi 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and Triunity JLRNA, LLC dba Jaguar Land Rover North America Los Angeles

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Soghrat Khorsandi filed this Song-Beverly action against Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, and Triunity JLRNA, LLC, alleging his Land Rover vehicle exhibited an overheating engine and other defects. 

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, Plaintiff now moves to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART, in the total amount of $31,500.00. 

Plaintiff is also awarded costs in the amount of $2,665.08.

Moving party is ordered to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

A. Legal Standard

Civil Code § 1794, subdivision (d) provides:

 

(d) 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.

(Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d) [emphasis added].)

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.)  “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’”  “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award….”  (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)  In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’”  (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.)  The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees.  (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.)

 

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94.  The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

B. Analysis

After mediation, the parties settled the matter in the amount of $48,250.00. (Saeedian Decl. ¶ 22.) For purposes of a fee award, the parties agreed that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing buyer.  The only matter at issue is the reasonableness of the fees requested, to be determined by the court.

 

1. Reasonable Hourly Rate

Plaintiff utilized four attorneys on this matter. (See Saeedian Decl. ¶ 25.) Over half of the total time billed (46.5 hours) is attributed to attorney Michael Saeedian, who seeks a rate of $695 per hour. (Id.) Attorney Adina Ostoia billed 10 hours, also at a rate of $695 per hour. (Id.) Attorney Christopher Urner billed just 1.8 hours at a rate of $525 per hour. (Id.) Law Clerk Jorge L. Acosta billed 28.6 hours at a rate of $250 per hour. (Id.)

The rates sought—while may not necessarily excessive, per se — at minimum fall on the very high end of expected rates for Song-Beverly litigation. Be that as it may, Plaintiff has demonstrated that courts have recently approved the same or similar rates. 

Considering the number of attorneys and a law clerk billing at varied rates, for Lodestar purposes, this court will award a blended hourly rate of $450.00 per hour. This determination considers the totality of the circumstances, including the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided, and the attorneys’ experience.  See, e.g., Mikhaeilpoor v.BMW of North America (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240 [Trial court has broad discretion to utilize a “blended hourly rate” for its lodestar analysis]

2. Number of Hours Reasonably Expended

In total, Plaintiff’s counsel’s records reflect 89.6 hours of time incurred on this matter. (See Saeedian Decl. ¶ 25.) 

"[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged [within the moving party’s verified billing invoice], with a sufficient argument and citations to evidence.  General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.”  (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488.)  

In opposition, Defendant argues the time incurred is excessive under the circumstances. Defendant calls this a “straight-forward Lemon Law case” with little discovery or law and motion practice, no expert designations, and no trial preparation. Defendant points to particular tasks in the billing entries that it contends are excessive, including the time to draft the “boilerplate” complaint, and to draft and review discovery, among other things. Defendant asks the court to reduce the fee request to $27,883 at most. (Opp. 3: 13.) 

Based on this court’s independent review of the billing records and consideration of the case, many of Defendants’ points are well-taken. Here, beyond the two motions to compel discovery, there was little, if any, law and motion practice. 

Moreover, as to the work that did occur in this case, the issues involved were applicable to other consumers’ vehicles, thereby triggering economies of scale in terms of Plaintiff’s counsel’s efficiency in litigating this matter. This should not have required anything more than slight factual modification to existing boilerplate. 

In light of these considerations, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case, using a lodestar methodology, is $31,500. This was calculated by multiplying the hourly rate of $450 by 70 hours, which this court deems to be the reasonable time spent on the matter.

The Court in its discretion declines to apply a multiplier given this was a relatively standard Song-Beverly case with no novel or complex issues of law.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part, in the total amount of $31,500.00.

Costs

Per the March 21, 2024 Memorandum of Costs, Plaintiff also seeks $2,665.08 in costs.

When the items on the verified cost bill appear to be proper, the burden of proof is on the contesting party. (Fennessy v. Deleuw-Cather Corp., 218 Cal. App. 3d 1192, 267 Cal. Rptr. 772 (1st Dist. 1990)).  However, when items claimed as costs do not appear on their face as proper and necessary and the items are properly challenged by a motion to tax costs, the burden of establishing the necessity of the items is on the party claiming them as costs. (Whitney v. Whitney, 164 Cal. App. 2d 577, 330 P.2d 947 (1st Dist. 1958)).  

Here, considering the scope and extent of the litigation in this matter, Plaintiff’s costs do not appear unreasonable on their face.  Defendants have not presented evidence or argument—through a motion to tax or otherwise—to meet their burden to establish that the items on the cost bill are unreasonable or unnecessary. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $2,665.08.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   May 02, 2024 ___________________________________