Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2019-00066320-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00066320-CU-BC-CTL CARILLO VS FCA US LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES is GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff DIANA CARILLO ('Plaintiff') seeks a total of $70,302.95 in attorney's fees from Defendant FCA US LLC's ('Defendant'). Civil Code section 1794(d) provides for an award of 'costs and expenses, including attorney's fees' to the prevailing buyer. The amount of attorney's fees is '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(d).) Further, the parties settled this matter via agreement which allowed for attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined by the Court to have been reasonably incurred pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d).

It is undisputed Plaintiff is the prevailing party and entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs and expenses pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d). To calculate the appropriate lodestar in this action, one must determine the reasonable hourly rate and multiply that figure by the reasonable number of hours spent. (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (2009) 34 Cal.4th 563, 579-580.) Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that the hourly rates are not unreasonable, and Defendant does not dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates.

'In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the 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 [Citation omitted].) Defendant does not assert the hours billed are excessive.

Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates Defendant's acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. (L.R. 2.1.19(B) ['The court may deem a lack of opposition to be a concession that a motion is meritorious']; See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) Notwithstanding the motion being unopposed, Plaintiff requests $4,500 'for Plaintiff's counsel to review Defendant FCA US LLC's Opposition, draft the Reply brief, and attend the hearing on this Motion.' As the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to award the additional $4,500. Therefore, the unopposed motion is granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $65,802.95 in attorney's fees.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3065332  64