Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV09474, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09474    Hearing Date: April 21, 2024    Dept: 39

Georges Mikhael v. Carwell, LLC, et al.

Case No. 23STCV09474

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

            Plaintiff Georges Mikhael (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act against Defendants Carwell, LLC (“Carwell”) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz”) on April 23, 2023.  On November 1, 2023, the Court ordered arbitration as to Plaintiff’s claims against Carwell and denied the motion as it related to Mercedes-Benz.  On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. 

            Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $39,192 in attorneys’ fees based upon 85.2 hours at a billing rate of $460 per hour.  Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to only $7,945 in attorneys’ fees.  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 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.)

            The Court approves Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $460 per hour based upon his background and experience.  However, the Court finds that 85.2 hours is unreasonable.  For example, Plaintiff’s counsel spent 39.5 hours communicating with his client.  While, as Counsel points out, Counsel had a duty to communicate with Plaintiff, Counsel’s duty was to reasonably communicate with Plaintiff.  (Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.4, subds. (a)(2)-(3), (b).)  Similarly, the time spent on some tasks—like drafting an opposition to a straightforward motion to compel or the estimate to draft a reply to this motion—seem high.  Therefore, the Court finds that 55 hours is reasonable for a case of this nature, especially given Defendants’ litigation conduct and delays in this case, which was filed over one year ago, on March 23, 2023.  Accordingly, the Court awards $25,300 in attorneys’ fees.  Defendant’s suggestion that the Court award only $7,945 in attorneys’ fees is unreasonable.  However, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled to a multiplier in this case.  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to $664.21 in costs.   

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted.

            2.         Defendants shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel a total of $25,964.21 within thirty (30) days.

            3.         The Court advances and continues the Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) from April 29, 2024, to May 21, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

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