Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 23STCV08384, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV08384, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

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

Plaintiffs Norma Gomez and Juan Gomez (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs in their favor, and against defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”)[1] in the total amount of $38,417.09, consisting of $36,738.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,678.59 in costs.

First, the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the Song-Beverly 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.”¿¿¿

Plaintiffs have presented evidence, and Defendant does not dispute, that (1) on November 27, 2023, Defendant sent a second Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offer to Plaintiffs for the repurchase amount of $75,000; (2) Plaintiffs accepted Defendant’s offer on December 29, 2023; and (3) Defendant’s offer “also provided [that Defendant was] to pay reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by Plaintiffs.” (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 17-19; Proudfoot Decl., ¶¶ [Defendant served, and Plaintiffs accepted, its “CCP 998 offer for $75,000 plus attorney’s fees”].) Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs from Defendant pursuant to Civil Code section 1794 and the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

Second, the court finds that Plaintiffs have established, as to the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action and the preparation of the pending fee motion, a lodestar amount of $31,647.50 ((32.1 hours x $600 hourly rate for attorney Saeedian) + (1.3 hours x $600 hourly rate for attorney Ostoia) + (8.3 hours x $525 hourly rate for attorney Urner) + (29 hours x $250 hourly rate for law clerk Acosta)). (Saeedian Decl., Ex. A; Saeedian Decl., ¶ 23.)

“[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.)¿¿¿

Plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of Michael Saeedian (“Saeedian”), in which Saeedian attests to the qualifications, skill and experience of the legal staff that performed work on this action. (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 2-6.) The court finds that a reasonably hourly rate for attorneys Saeedian and Adina Ostoia is $600. (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) The court finds that the hourly rates charged by attorney Christopher Urner ($525) and law clerk Jorge Acosta ($250) are reasonable in light of their qualifications, skill, and experience. (Saeedian Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

The court has reviewed each work and time entry on the billing statement attached as Exhibit A to Saeedian’s declaration, which establishes that the legal staff working on this action expended a total of 74.1 hours to prosecute this action. (Saeedian Decl., Ex. A, p. 9.) The court notes that Defendant has argued, in its opposition, that Plaintiffs seek unreasonable attorney’s fees for the time expended (1) by law clerk Jorge Acosta, and (2) to prepare form pleadings and discovery. Defendant did not cite particular entries in support of its contention that the hours expended were unreasonable.[2] (Pont v. Pont (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 428, 447 [“‘The party opposing the fee award can be expected to identify the particular charges it considers objectionable’”] [internal citation omitted].) However, as set forth above, the court has reviewed each work and time entry on the billing statement submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ motion.

Upon the court’s review of the billing statement and Defendant’s opposition, the court finds that (1) of the 4.2 hours billed to draft plaintiff Norma Gomez’s special interrogatories, requests for admission, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, 0.3 of those hours billed by Saeedian and 1 of those hours billed by Jorge Acosta were not reasonably expended, (2) of the 2.3 hours billed to draft a meet and confer letter regarding Defendant’s discovery responses, 1.3 of those hours billed by Saeedian were not reasonably expended, and (3) of the 1.6 hours billed to draft a meet and confer letter regarding defendant Kia of Carson’s discovery responses, 0.8 of those hours billed by Saeedian were not reasonably expended. (Saeedian Decl., Ex. A, pp. 3-4, 8.)

The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their attorneys and their attorneys’ legal staff reasonably expended a total of 70.7 hours in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action and the preparation of the pending fee motion at the hourly rates of $600 (Saeedian and Adina Ostoia), $525 (Christopher Urner), and $250 (Jorge Acosta). (Saeedian Decl., ¶ 23; Saeedian Decl., Ex. A; Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)

Third, the court finds that Plaintiffs (1) are entitled to recover the costs and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action, and (2) are entitled to an award of $1,678.59 in costs because (i) Plaintiffs have supported their request for costs in this amount by filing a verified memorandum of costs with the court on February 9, 2024, and (ii) Defendant did not file a motion to strike or tax costs within the time required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486 [“A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary”]; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700, subds. (b)(1), (b)(4); Memorandum of Costs, p. 7 [proof of electronic service of memorandum of costs on February 9, 2024].)

The court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have shown that they are entitled to recover $31,647.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,678.59 in costs from Defendant.

The court grants plaintiffs Norma Gomez and Juan Gomez’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs as follows.

The court orders that plaintiffs Norma Gomez and Juan Gomez shall recover a total of $33,326.09, consisting of $31,647.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,678.59 in costs, from defendant Kia America, Inc. pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d).

The court orders plaintiffs Norma Gomez and Juan Gomez to give notice of this ruling.

[1] The court notes that Plaintiffs named two defendants in this action: (1) Kia America, Inc., and (2) Kia of Carson. However, it appears that Plaintiffs have only requested that defendant Kia America, Inc. pay their attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the settlement agreement executed by the parties. (Notice of Mot., p. i:24-26.)

[2] The court notes that Defendant’s assertion does not appear to accurately reflect the billing statement as to the hours expended to draft the Complaint. Although Defendant states that Plaintiffs “billed 2.3 hours on the form complaint,” Plaintiffs’ attorneys billed only 1.3 hours to draft the Complaint and 0.1 hours to review the conformed summons, complaint, and other case management documents. (Opp., p. 7:9-10; Saeedian Decl., Ex. A, pp. 1 [4/14/2023 entry to “Review file and draft Complaint” for 1.3 hours], 2 [4/17/2023 entry to review conformed summons, Complaint, and other documents for 0.1 hours].)

norma gomez , et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. kia america, inc. , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	23STCV08384

	Hearing Date:	July 10, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees