Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 21STCV29848, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV29848, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29848 Hearing Date: August 28, 2023 Dept: 39

Victor Hernandez v. FCA US, LLC

Case No. 21STCV29848

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Victor Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against FCA US, LLC (“Defendant”) on August 12, 2021. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses on August 5, 2022, which was granted in part and denied in part. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with the Court’s order on that discovery motion. Plaintiff filed a series of boilerplate motions in limine on April 20, 2023, following which the case settled. Now, Plaintiff’s attorneys seek $95,209.59 in attorney’s fees based upon attorney’s fees of $63,473.06 plus a 1.5 multiplier. Plaintiff’s attorneys seek a total of $4,958.01 in costs. Defendant opposes the motion for attorneys’ fees. Defendant does not oppose the requests for costs and did not file a motion to tax costs. The Court orders Defendant to pay $44,431.14 in attorney’s fees and $4,958.01 in costs.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award….” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.) 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.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s attorneys request a total of $63,473.06 in attorney’s fees. This request is excessive for numerous reasons. As an initial matter, the billing rates are excessive. Valerie G. Campell seeks an hourly rate of $575 per hour. Larry Castruita seeks an hourly rate of $550 per hour. Mark O’Connor seeks an hourly rate of $700 per hour. These rates are excessive in consideration of the reasonable market rates for such cases. Cases under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act are not so complicated as to justify such high rates. Second, there was not substantial litigation in this case. Third, the handling of this case reflects inefficiencies. Plaintiff was represented by two separate law firms, three attorneys, and multiple paralegals. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act intended to redress harm to consumers, not to create employment opportunities for attorneys. Fourth, the hours spent on this case reflect inefficiencies, given that cases under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case are standard and the pleadings are boilerplate. Finally, some of the entries are improper. For example, Plaintiff seeks payment for at least 7.5 hours to oppose a motion to tax costs, which was never filed. For all of these reasons, the Court reduces the request by 30% and awards $44,431.14 in attorney’s fees. The Court orders Defendant to pay $4,958.01 in costs.

Plaintiff’s counsel also requests a multiplier in this case. This request is absurd on its face. “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.) None of these facts are present in this case. At heart, this was a standard case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act that settled before trial. Therefore, the request for a multiplier is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

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

2. The Court orders Defendant to pay $44,431.14 in attorney’s fees, and $4,958.01 in costs within sixty (60) days.

3. The Court dismisses this case with prejudice.

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