Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV20499, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20499 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 39
Linda Winkler v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
Case No. 22STCV20499
Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney’s fees and costs, following the parties’ settlement of his clients claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 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.)
As of the filing of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel spent 33.30 hours on this matter, for which he seeks fees of $15,215. The Court finds that the hours and billing rates are reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an additional $2,000 in fees for reviewing and responding to Defendants’ opposition, as well as the hearing in this matter. The Court approves these additional fees. The Court disagrees with Defendant’s counsel’s argument that the billings are duplicative. Plaintiff’s counsel’s invoices are detailed and do not reflect substantial duplication of effort. It also appears as though the case was staffed appropriately, as Sharon Shin, an attorney (and not a paralegal, as argued by Defendants) did the bulk of the work, and Adam Zolonz, supervised her work. Overall, the amount of fees—$17,215—is commensurate with what the Court would expect for a case of this nature and approves these fees.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for a multiplier. “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.) A multiplier is not appropriate in this case.
Plaintiff also seeks costs in the amount of $684.91 per a memorandum of costs filed as an attachment to the motion. Defendant’s counsel argues that Plaintiff has not supported these costs, but Plaintiff was not required to do so until Defendants challenged the costs. (See Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774-776.) Plaintiff seeks $512.91 in filing fees. There appears to be a typographical error on the filing fee for the case management statement, which states that Plaintiff’s counsel paid $7.26 instead of $2.25. However, the rest of the fees appear to be valid, and the Court approves costs of $507.90. Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states that he incurred $172 in service fees. There is no question that Plaintiff’s counsel served the summons and complaint, and there is no basis to question Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration.
Defendants’ counsel relies on a series of orders on motions for attorney’s fees in different cases, including a different case before the undersigned about two years ago. Every motion for attorney’s fees is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and prior orders are neither binding nor necessarily persuasive (even if written by the same judge). Simply, that was a different case. In the instant case, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for approximately $17,000 based upon approximately 37 hours is reasonable and commensurate with what the Court would expect for a case of this nature.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees and orders Defendant to pay a total of $17,215 in attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days.
2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for costs and orders Defendant to pay $679.90 in costs within thirty (30) days.
3. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for May 25, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. The Court provides notice that if Plaintiff’s counsel does not appear, absent good cause, the Court will assume this matter has been resolved and will dismiss the case with prejudice.
4. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.