Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case Number: 37-2023-00000748-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00000748-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) 37-2023-00000748-CU-BC-CTL MANRIQUEZ VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR TIME ACTUALLY EXPENDED AND REASONABLY INCURRED is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Olga Lidia Perales Manriquez ('Plaintiff') seeks a total of $35,324.99 in attorney's fees and costs composed of $33,415.50 in attorney fees and $1,909.49 in costs and expenses from Defendants JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC and JAGUAR LAND ROVER SAN DIEGO ('Defendants'). 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 and costs 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 reasonable, and Defendant does not sufficiently dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates. While the Court would agree $695/hour would be too high a rate if it had been charged for all tasks, the blended rate was much lower (below $500/hour).

'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].) While Defendants point to what did not occur in this action, Defendants brush over the motion for summary adjudication and motions to compel discovery without showing they were entirely unnecessary and/or excessive. Defendants' '[g]eneral arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.' (Lunada Biomedical, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at 488 [Citation omitted].) However, Defendants do cite several specific categories, which are addressed below.

Defendants assert 'Plaintiff's counsel overbilled at $2,247.00 through the filing of the boilerplate Complaint.' One hour for the complaint is not excessive. The remainder of the time for items like client Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3052967 54 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MANRIQUEZ VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC 37-2023-00000748-CU-BC-CTL intake have not been shown to be excessive by Defendants. The Court rejects Defendants' argument as to 'administrative time' because 'necessary support services for attorneys, e.g., secretarial and paralegal services, are includable within an award of attorney fees.' (Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 951.) While the Court understands discovery in lemon law matters are often routine, the Court is unpersuaded that the billed amounts for propounding and responding to discovery, as well as meeting and conferring regarding same, are excessive in this case.

Next, Defendants fail to demonstrate the discovery motions and motion for summary adjudication were a waste and/or unnecessary. Finally, the Court finds $3,892.00 for a fee motion is not excessive.

In short, the Court finds Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive. The motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $33,415.50 in attorney's fees and $1,909.49 in costs and expenses from Defendants.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3052967 54