Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV32337, Date: 2025-02-03 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: 22STCV32337 Hearing Date: February 3, 2025 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
22STCV32337 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
February
3, 2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and
reimbursement of costs |
||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Paul Perez
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Reimbursement of Costs
The court
considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with
this motion.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Paul Perez (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order awarding
him attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $36,362.07, consisting of
$34,690 in attorney’s fees and $1,672.07 in costs, to be paid by defendant
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Defendant”).
First, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from Defendant pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d), provides:¿ “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.”¿¿
Here, the parties entered into the “Release and Settlement Agreement”
on February 27, 2023, pursuant to which the parties agreed (1) that, to settle
this action, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff $7,671.78 and shall pay the loan
payoff for the subject vehicle, and (2) that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s
reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. (Myers Decl., Ex. H, Settlement Agreement, pp.
1, 3.) The parties further agreed that
Plaintiff would be the prevailing party for purposes of an attorney’s fees
motion. (Id. at p. 3.) Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff is
entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Defendant pursuant to Civil Code
section 1794.
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 pending fee motion, a lodestar amount of $21,749.
“[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).)¿ “[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
declaration of attorney John Myers, in which Myers attests to the
qualifications, skill, and experience of the legal staff that performed work in
this action. (Myers Decl., ¶ 54.) The court finds the reasonable hourly rates
for the legal staff are as follows: (1) for attorney Brian Bickel, $685; (2)
for attorney Jordan Sannipoli, $605; (3) for attorney Sharona Silver, $475; (4)
for attorney Myers, $515; and (5) for the paralegals and assistants, $125. (Ibid.)
The court has reviewed the time and expense records of the legal staff
that performed work in this action, as attached to Plaintiff’s counsel’s
declaration, as well as Defendant’s opposition papers and spreadsheet
containing its objections to those entries.
(Myers Decl., Ex. A [time records]; Hooper Decl., Ex. A1 [chart
containing objections].) The court finds
that the following hours were not reasonably expended to prosecute this action:
·
Of the 8.20 hours billed by attorney Myers for
the period of March 8, 2022 through September 28, 2022, 3.20 of those hours
were not reasonably expended.
·
The 0.40
hours billed by legal assistant MP on October 4, 2022 to save and submit case
documents are not recoverable because those hours were expended to perform
clerical tasks.
·
Of the 0.50 hours billed by legal assistant MT
on November 2, 2022 to save documents to file, calendar filing deadlines, and
receive documents, 0.40 of those hours are not recoverable since they were
expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by legal assistant MT on
November 8, 2022 to receive a document and save it to the file are not
recoverable because those hours were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by legal assistant MT on
November 21, 2022 to receive the answer and save it to the file are not
recoverable because this entry describes a clerical task.
·
Of the 0.40 hours billed by legal assistant MT
on November 23, 2022 to draft a proof of service and serve documents, 0.30 of
those hours are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical
tasks. The court finds that legal
assistant MT reasonably expended 0.10 hours to draft a proof of service.
·
Of the 1.80 hours billed by legal assistant MP
on December 6, 2022, 1.70 of those hours to compile and serve documents are not
recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks. The court finds that legal assistant MP
reasonably expended 0.10 hours to draft a proof of service.
·
The 0.20 hours billed by legal assistant MP on
December 14, 2022 to receive a proof of service and save it to the client file
are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by paralegal CW on
December 14, 2022 to receive an order form and save it to the client file are
not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.20 hours billed by legal assistant MP on
December 15, 2022 to receive proofs of service and email the attorney regarding
receipt thereof are not recoverable since they were expended to perform
clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by legal assistant MP on
December 22, 2022 to receive a proof of service are not recoverable since they
were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
Of the 0.50 hours billed by paralegal CW on
January 17, 2023, 0.30 of those hours are not recoverable since they were
expended to perform the clerical tasks of submitting or serving forms and
saving documents to the client file. The
court finds that 0.20 hours were reasonably expended to draft the case
management statement and proof of service.
·
The 0.30 hours billed by legal assistant MT on
January 27, 2023 to schedule special appearance attorneys and update the
calendar are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical
tasks.
·
The 0.30 hours billed by legal assistant MT on
February 1, 2023 to process the special appearance attorneys’ outcome of the
case management conference and to update the firm calendar are not recoverable
since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by legal assistant MP on
March 1, 2023 to receive proof of the loan payment and save it to the client folder
are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by paralegal CW on March
1, 2023 to receive the settlement and email it to counsel are not recoverable
since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by legal assistant MP on
May 1, 2023 to receive documents and confirm receipt thereof are not
recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
Of the 0.30 hours billed by paralegal CW on May
3, 2023 to receive settlement check and deposit check, communicate with
counsel, and draft the settlement and fee motion letter to the client, 0.10 of
those hours are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical
tasks (receiving and depositing the check).
·
Of the 0.70 hours billed by legal assistant MP
on May 9, 2023, 0.40 of those hours (to check online bank to verify deposit,
process accounting and client trust account, and prepare settlement check) are
not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks. The court finds that 0.30 of those hours were
reasonably expended to correspond with the client and draft the settlement
letter.
·
The 0.20 hours billed by paralegal CW on May 12,
2023 to email the client tracking number for the settlement check are not
recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
Of the 0.20 hours billed by attorney Bickel on May
12, 2023 to review the client letter and settlement check, check that the
deposit has cleared, and to review the accounting on the accounts and IOLTA
ledgers, 0.10 of those hours are not recoverable since they were expended to
perform clerical tasks regarding accounting.
·
Of the 0.40 hours billed by paralegal CW on July
17, 2023 to receive documents, save the documents to the file, serve the order
on opposing counsel, and to draft a proof of service, 0.30 of those hours are
not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical tasks. The court finds that 0.10 hours were
reasonably expended to draft a proof of service.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by paralegal CW on January
12, 2024 to schedule attorney Sannipoli’s remote appearance are not recoverable
since they were expended to perform clerical tasks.
·
The 0.10 hours billed by paralegal CW on March
25, 2024 to receive the notice of ruling, save it to the folder, and calendar a
deadline are not recoverable since they were expended to perform clerical
tasks.
·
Of the total 22.1 hours billed by attorney Myers
to audit the billing entries, prepare the fee motion and reply papers, and to
review the opposition and attend the hearing on this motion on June 17, 2024,
June 18, 2024, June 19, 2024, June 28, 2024 (actual and anticipated), 12.1 of
those hours were not reasonably expended.
The court finds that 10 of those hours were reasonably expended.
·
Of the 2.90 hours billed by attorney Bickel to
review the draft of the fee motion and make revisions thereto, 1.4 of those
hours were not reasonably expended.
(Myers
Decl., Ex. A, pp. 1-11; Hooper Decl., Ex. A1.)
The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has established a lodestar of
$21,749 calculated as follows: (1) 2.9 hours expended by attorney Bickel at the
hourly rate of $685 ($1,986.50); (2) 3.7 hours billed by attorney Sannipoli at
the hourly rate of $605 ($2,238.50); (3) 17.30 hours expended by attorney
Silver at the hourly rate of $475 ($8,217.50); (4) 17.1 hours expended by
attorney Myers at the hourly rate of $515 ($8,806.50); (5) 0.7 hours expended
by paralegal CW at the hourly rate of $125 ($87.50); and (6) 3.3 total hours
expended by legal assistants MP and MT at the hourly rate of $125
($412.50). (Myers Decl., Ex. A [time
entries] and Ex. B [summary of legal staff’s time].)
Third, the court finds that
Plaintiff has supported, and Defendant does not challenge, his request for
costs in the amount of $1,672.07. (Myers
Decl., Ex. A, p. 11 [additional legal charges totaling $1,672.07] and Ex. C
[invoices showing costs]; Opp., p. 9:20 [“MBUSA does not contest the costs”].)
The court therefore finds that
Plaintiff has shown that he is entitled to recover from Defendant $21,749 in
attorney’s fees and $1,672.07 in costs.
ORDER
The court grants in part plaintiff
Paul Perez’s motion for attorney’s fees and reimbursement of costs as follows.
The court orders that plaintiff Paul
Perez shall recover from defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC the total amount of $23,421.07,
consisting of $21,749 in attorney’s fees and $1,672.07 in costs, pursuant to Civil
Code section 1794, subdivision (d).
The court orders plaintiff Paul
Perez to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court