Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV03425, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03425    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 39

Leticia Gurrola v. San Fernando Motor Company, et al.

Case No. 22STCV03425

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Leticia Gurrola (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”) on January 27, 2022.  Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of settlement on May 1, 2023, and seeks $32,514.50 in attorney’s fees plus a multiplier of 0.5, as well as $13,052.42 in costs.  Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that Plaintiff should receive only $14,265 in attorney’s fees and $10,118.85 in costs.  The Court grants the motion and orders Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $35,765.95 in attorney’s fees and $13,052.42 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 counsel seeks $32,514.50 in attorney’s fees based upon having spent 87.2 hours at attorney rates between $295 and $525 per hour and legal assistant rates of $175 per hour.  The Court grants the request without reduction.  This case involved litigation, but not because Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in “unnecessary litigation” or “otherwise waste[d] judicial resources primarily for the benefit of Counsel alone.”  (See Defendant’s Opposition, p. 5:5-7.)  Rather, Defendant’s counsel was responsible for the problems in this case based upon dilatory conduct in discovery.  For example, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified, which the Court granted.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated November 23, 2022.)  The Court found that Defendant was dilatory and awarded discovery sanctions to be determined.  (Ibid.)  Similarly, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel based upon Defendant’s dilatory conduct, and the Court found that “Defendant’s failure to provide timely responses to the discovery [was] an abuse of the discovery process,” granting sanctions to be determined.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated November 9, 2022.)  In fact, Defendant—not Plaintiff—was responsible for the length of time and litigation in this case.  Based upon Defendant’s conduct, which made the case more difficult than a generic Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case, the Court awards a multiplier of 0.1.

            Plaintiff seeks costs of $13,052.42, and Defendant argues that $2,933.57 in costs are without merit.  Not only did Defendant not file a motion to tax costs, the costs are reasonable and necessary to the litigation. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

            2.         The Court orders Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $35,765.95 in attorney’s fees and $13,052.42 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.