Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV04691, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV04691    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Aram Lambaryan    

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Ford Motor Company

Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Aram Lambaryan (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order granting him attorney’s fees and costs, to be paid by defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”), in the total amount of $118,003.93, consisting of (1) $73,700 in attorney’s fees, (2) a 1.5 lodestar multiplier of $36,850, (3) assistant fees equal to $1,890, and (4) $5,563.93 in costs and expenses.

First, the court finds, and Defendant does not appear to dispute, that Plaintiff has shown that he is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs from Defendant.  (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (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”].)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has established, as to the attorney’s fees incurred to commence and prosecute this action and to prepare the papers filed in connection with the pending fee motion, a lodestar amount of $27,420.

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. . . . .¿ The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.¿ 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.”¿ (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (internal citations omitted); Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 682, 691 [“To determine a reasonable attorney fee award, the trial court applies the lodestar method”].)¿ “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.”¿ (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff has submitted the declarations of attorneys Hovanes Margarian (“H. Margarian”) and Armen Margarian (“A. Margarian”), in which they attest to their education and experience in handling consumer rights litigation.  (H. Margarian Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, 12-16 A. Margarian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 15-16, 18.)  Upon consideration of the facts stated in those declarations, the court finds that (1) a reasonable hourly rate for attorney H. Margarian is $550, and (2) a reasonable hourly rate for attorney A. Margarian is $450.  (Ibid.)

The court has reviewed (1) the billing records of the legal staff that performed work on behalf of Plaintiff, and (2) Defendant’s objections thereto that it has raised in its opposition papers.  The court finds that many of the billing entries show that certain hours billed were not reasonably expended, or show over-litigation of this action.  (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 250 [“trial courts are not required to state ‘each charge they find to be reasonable or unreasonable, necessary or unnecessary . . . .  A reduced award might be fully justified by a general observation that an attorney overlitigated a case”].)

For example, of the 2.30 hours billed by attorney H. Margarian on January 25, 2021 to create a case folder and input information, the court finds that 1.30 of those hours were not reasonably expended.  (H. Margarian Decl., Ex. A, p. 1.)  Further, of the 3.50 hours billed by H. Margarian to conduct an informal inspection of the vehicle on January 27, 2021, the court finds that 2.50 of those hours were not reasonably expended.  (Ibid.)  Similarly, the total 6.4 hours expended to draft documents related to depositions were not reasonably expended since the billing records do not show that Plaintiff conducted depositions, and Defendant’s opposition papers assert that “no depositions occurred[.]”  (H. Margarian Decl., Ex. A, pp. 2 [Mar. 2, 2022 entry of 0.30 hours to draft Notice of Taking Deposition of Person(s) Most Knowledgeable], 3 [Mar. 14, 2022 entry of 3.80 hours to draft 14 notices of taking deposition], 3 [Mar. 16, 2022 entry of 2.30 hours to draft 14 Deposition Subpoenas for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things]; Opp., PDF p. 2:6.)  The court further finds that the total 6.2 hours expended to prepare voluminous discovery (218 special interrogatories, 127 requests for admission, and 73 requests for production of documents) was not reasonable, and the court therefore has made appropriate reductions.  (H. Margarian Decl., Ex. A, pp. 2 [Feb. 28, 2022 and Mar. 1, 2022 entries for total 4.2 hours to draft first set of discovery], 3 [Mar. 20, 2022 entries for total of 2 hours to draft second set of discovery].)

Based on the court’s review of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, the court finds that Plaintiff’s legal staff reasonably expended a total number of 51.4 hours to commence and prosecute this action and to prepare the pending fee motion ((7.7 pre-filing hours x H. Margarian’s $550 hourly rate = $4,235) + (1.0 pre-filing hours x legal assistant’s $150 hourly rate = $150) + (26.2 post-filing hours x H. Margarian’s $550 hourly rate = $14,410) + (4 post-filing hours x A. Margarian’s $450 hourly rate = $1,800) + (1.5 post-filing hours x assistant’s $150 hourly rate = $225) + (5 client communication hours x H. Margarian’s $550 hourly rate = $2,750) + (7 hours to prepare fee motion, breakdown of expended hours, and reply papers, and to appear at the hearing on this motion x H. Margarian’s $550 hourly rate = $3,850)).

Third, while the court recognizes that this matter was taken on a contingency basis, the court finds that there is no evidence establishing that this lemon law matter involved complex or novel issues that would justify the imposition of a multiplier.  (A. Margarian Decl., ¶ 14; H. Margarian Decl., ¶¶ 19-20; Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 248 [setting forth factors delineated by the Supreme Court that the trial court may consider in adjusting the lodestar].)

Fourth, the court finds that Plaintiff has supported his request for costs and expenses in the amount of  $5,563.93 ($546.53 in filing fees + $4,880 in expert witness fees for vehicle inspection + $15.75 electronic filing fees + $121.65 for reservation fees for the motion for attorney’s fees).  (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d); H. Margarian Decl., ¶ 35 and Ex. A, p. 13 [chart of summary of costs and expenses, explaining amounts for filing and expert witness fees and generally stating unspecified “Other Fees” in amount of $121.65]; Sep. 11, 2024 Memorandum of Costs, p. MC-011 ¶ 16 [identifying $121,65 as “Reservation Fee for Motion for Attorney’s Fees”].)

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiff Aram Lambaryan’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses as follows.

            Pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, the court orders that plaintiff Aram Lambaryan shall recover from defendant Ford Motor Company a total amount of $32,983.93, consisting of $27,420 in attorney’s fees and $5,563.93 in costs.

            The court orders plaintiff Aram Lambaryan to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 13, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court