Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV16564, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16564 Hearing Date: August 9, 2022 Dept: 78
|
HAYK BAMBAKYAN, Plaintiff, vs. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al.; Defendants. |
Case No.: |
21STCV16564 |
|
Hearing Date: |
August 9, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLAINTIFF HAYK BAMBAKYAN’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.
|
||
Plaintiff Hayk Bambakyan’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2000.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
This is an action brought under the
Song-Beverley Consumer Warranty Act. The Complaint alleges as follows.
On or about August 29, 2019, Plaintiff
Hayk Bambakyan (“Plaintiff”) leased a vehicle (the “Subject Vehicle”) that was
manufactured, distributed and/or warrantied by Defendant Jaguar Land Rover
North America, LLC (“JLRNA”). (Compl. ¶ 1.) The vehicle was sold with an
express limited warranty. (Compl. ¶ 14.)
Shortly after purchase, the Subject
Vehicle began exhibiting numerous defects covered by warranty. (Compl. ¶ 44.) On
at least five occasions, Plaintiff delivered the Subject Vehicle to JLRNA’s
authorized service and repair facility for repairs. (Compl. ¶ 45.) The repair
facility was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable
warranties. (Compl. ¶ 47.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint asserting two causes of action:
1. Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability under Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and
2. Breach of Express Warranty under
Song-Beverly Warranty Act.
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint asserting the same causes of action.
On July 28, 2021, Defendants filed an
Answer.
On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed
a Notice of Acceptance of Defendants’ Section 998 Offer to Compromise.
On November 2, 2021, the parties filed
a joint Stipulation and Order Requesting Court Retain Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.
On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.
On June 8, 2022, JLRNA filed an
Opposition.
On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a
Reply.
On June 21, 2022 The Court held a
hearing on this motion. At the request
of JLRNA, the Court took the matter under submission and, after
reviewing the file, gave JLRNA 10 days to file a declaration in opposition to
Plaintiff’s reply and set the continued hearing for today’s date.
On July 1, 2022 JLRNA filed the 2nd
Supplemental Declaration of Brian Takahashi..
To cut to the chase, the “facts” the
Court found in the original tentative decision remain the same. But the facts
disclosed in Mr. Takahashi’s Second Supplemental declaration raises serious
concerns. It is unquestionably appropriate for the Court to award attorney’s
fees in lemon law cases that are not calculated with reference to the actual
award of the plaintiff or limited to a percentage of the award. No automobile
purchaser, including this purchaser, could afford to litigate against a major car
company without this protection. But, our economic system is unduly burdened,
as is our Court system, when attorneys—talented attorneys like those employed
by plaintiff here – lose perspective.
By a traditional analysis, an award of
approximately $11,000 for attorney’s fees may well have been appropriate.
Perhaps more importantly, had plaintiff’s attorneys furnished the back up to
their bills to counsel for JLRNA when counsel for JLRNA requested them, a
reasonable compromise very likely would have been reached, obviating the need
both for this hearing and the June 21, 2022 hearing, along with the work the required
of the Court and counsel for JLRNA in preparing for these hearings. That is the
way the system is designed to work. It didn’t work here.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $1,500.
DATED: August 9, 2022.
_____________________________
Hon. Robert S. Draper
Judge of the Superior Court