Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV16564, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16564    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Plaintiff Hayk Bambakyan’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $11,150.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,374.50 in costs. Together, this equals $12,524.50.

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.

DISCUSSION

       I.            EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff makes numerous objections to the Declaration of Brian Takahashi submitted in Support of JLRNA’s Opposition.

Objection numbers 6, 7, and 8 are SUSTAINED.

The remaining objections are OVERRULED.

    II.         MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to a provision in the parties’ settlement agreement which allows for Plaintiff to recover fees, costs, and expenses by motion. (Parnell Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 10.) Defendant does not object to reasonable attorneys’ fees but argues that Plaintiff’s claimed fees are excessive. (Opposition at p. 1.)

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. 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. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)  Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at 48, n.23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-96.) 

The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 770, 774 (emphasis in original).) A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.) 

Here, Plaintiff seeks $20,878.90 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Motion at p. 1.) This figure represents $13,625 as the Lodestar, $817.50 in Lodestar adjustment, $1,262.55 in underlying costs, $2,872.20 in accrued attorneys’ fees and costs in filing the instant motion, and an anticipated $2,391.65 in anticipated fees and costs in responding to JLRNA’s Opposition to the instant motion. (Motion at p. 1.)

Plaintiff requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of $500 per hour for Attorney Adam Zolonz, $450 per hour for Attorney Stephen Parnell, and $150 per hour for paralegals. (Motion at p. 6.) Plaintiff states that Attorney Zolonz worked .7 hours on the action, Attorney Parnell worked 26.5 hours, and support staff worked 9 hours. (Parnell Decl. at p. 15.)

Plaintiff argues that higher attorneys’ fees are required here, as JLRNA has delayed in fulfilling its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. (Motion at p. 2.) Plaintiff argues this has required Plaintiff’s Counsel to be in frequent communication with Defendants’ Counsel regarding the delays. (Ibid.)

In Opposition, JLRNA does not dispute that Plaintiff is owed reasonable attorneys’ fees. Instead, JLRNA argues that the requested hourly rates are excessive, that Plaintiff’s Counsel has exaggerated the number of hours required for a Lemon Law action so quickly settled, and that no fees should be awarded for the filing of the unnecessary instant motion. (Opposition at p. 8.) JLRNA requests that the Court reduce Plaintiff’s Attorneys’ fees to $6,717.50. (Ibid.) Finally, JLRNA argues that there should be no lodestar multiplier, as the action was straight forward and did not require additional legal expertise. (Opposition at p. 9.) JLRNA notes that the initial settlement offer included $7,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and that had Plaintiff accepted this number, the instant motion would not be needed. (Ibid.)

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested billing rate is reasonable and in line with attorneys of similar experience in similar actions. However, the Court agrees with JLRNA that Plaintiff’s stated hours are too high for a routine action settled very quickly. Additionally, the Court finds that there was no extreme complexity or need for expertise to justify the .06 Lodestar multiplier, and therefore removes the lodestar multiplier from Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.  

Finally, the Court finds that the filing of the instant motion, although possibly unnecessary, was within the expected course of litigation and within Plaintiff’s right to file. However, the Court agrees that the over $5,000 in costs, representing six hours of attorneys’ fees to file the motion and 5.25 hours in anticipated time to file the Reply, are, again, too high.

The Court reduces Attorney Parnell’s lodestar time to 15 hours. Together with Attorney Zolonz’s .7 hours, and the support staff’s nine hours, this represents 24.7 hours. Billed at their respective rates, this equals $8,450.

The Court reduces Attorney Parnell’s time to draft the instant motion to four hours, and the time to read and respond to JLRNA’s opposition to 2.5 hours. At Attorney Parnell’s billable rate of $450 per hour, this equals $2,700.

Together, this equals $11,150.00.

  III.         ADDENDUM FOR 10/28/22 HEARING

Following the initial hearing on this matter on 6/21/22, the Court continued the hearing and granted JLRNA leave to file a Supplemental Declaration in response to Plaintiff’s Reply. The purpose of this Supplemental Declaration was to determine whether Plaintiff unreasonably declined JLRNA’s initial offer of $7500 in attorney’s fees to garner more fees by engaging in unnecessary motion practice.

In his Supplemental Declaration, JLRNA’s Counsel, Brian Takahashi, asserts that he spoke with Plaintiff’s Counsel on March 4, 2022, regarding both this and another matter in which they were engaged. (Takahashi Supp. Decl. ¶ 7.) During this conversation, Takahashi states that he “believe[s] that [he] extended” the offer for $7500 dollars in attorney’s fees. (Ibid.)

In contrast, Plaintiff’s Counsel, both allege that no such offer was extended. (Parnell Reply Decl. ¶ 3; Zolonz Reply Decl. ¶ 7.)

As Takahashi expresses uncertainty about the offer, and as both Parnell and Zolonz express certainty that no such offer was extended, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not unreasonably or unnecessarily file the instant motion.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $11,150.00 and for $1,374.50 in costs.

DATED: October 28, 2022

__________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court