Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 21STCV24564 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV24564, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24564 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 39

Alma Delia Rios v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Case No. 21STCV24564

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff Alma Delia Rios (“Plaintiff”) filed this case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed this case on July 2, 2021, and the case involved no pretrial litigation. The final trial date was October 4, 2022, and Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of settlement on September 15, 2022. Now, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney’s fees and costs totaling $150,637.50 based upon: (1) Attorney’s fees of $100,425; (2) A lodestar multiplier of 0.5, resulting in an additional $50,212.50; and (3) Costs of $5,559.83. Defendant opposes the motion and requests that the Court order only $46,280 in attorney’s fees. Defendant does not challenge the costs.

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.) The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.) The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94.) The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

A request for over $150,000 for a settled Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case involving no novel issues of fact or law, and no pretrial litigation, is shocking on its face. That alone is a “red flag” necessitating a thorough review of Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rate and claimed hours.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to be compensated at a rate of $650 per hour. In assessing the reasonableness of hourly billing rates, “the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.) The Court has considered the record, including Plaintiff’s counsel’s qualifications, as well as the straightforward nature of this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case. The Court finds that a rate of $450 is appropriate for a case of this nature.

Plaintiff’s counsel spent 154.50 hours on this matter. Some of these hours are excessive. For example, it is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel spent 22.50 hours—almost three days—on the instant motion for attorney’s fees. Similarly, the time spent on pre-filing matters and client communications—which were 21.80 hours and 14.20 hours, respectively—appear to be excessive. The Court reduces the claimed hours by 20% to account for apparent inefficiencies. The Court declines to reduce the hours further, given that this case almost proceeded to trial, meaning that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably spent more time on this case than others which settle at an earlier stage.

Once the Court has determined an appropriate lodestar figure, the Court can determine whether that figure should be adjusted with a positive or negative multiplier. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 997.) “Whether a multiplier or demultiplier is appropriate is based on several factors, including (1) the risks presented by the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the legal and factual issues involved; (3) the results obtained on behalf of the plaintiff; and (4) the skill exhibited by counsel. (In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 556.) “The ‘results obtained’ factor can properly be used to enhance a lodestar calculation where [1] an exceptional effort produced [2] an exceptional benefit.” (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2005) 34 Cal.4th 553, 582, numerical alterations added.) Plaintiff’s counsel does not satisfy his burden of establishing that a positive multiplier is appropriate in this case.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted.

2. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel a total of $61,179.83 based upon: (a) Attorney’s fees of $55,620 based upon 123.6 hours at a rate of $450 per hour; and (b) Costs of $5,559.83.

3. The Court denies Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for a multiplier.

4. The Court orders the parties to correct any obvious mathematical errors without a further order of the Court.

5. Defendant shall pay the attorney’s fees and costs within sixty (60) days.

6. The Court dismisses this case with prejudice. If Defendant does not comply with this order, Plaintiff’s counsel may file a motion to enforce this order or an ex parte application for entry of judgment in this amount.

7. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.