Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV35600, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35600 Hearing Date: December 30, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept. 68
Date: 12-30-24 c/f 9-18-24
Case: 22STCV35600
Trial Date: N/A
ATTORNEY FEES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Adan Marin, et al.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors, LLC
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion for Attorney Fees
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. The court vacated the May 28, 2024, trial date.
RULING: Continued.
Plaintiffs Adan Marin and Claudia Fernandez move for $50,887.50 in attorney fees and $4,024.216 in costs. Plaintiffs seek no multiplier enhancement or fees related to the instant motion. Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) in opposition challenges the motion as untimely, and the fees as exorbitant, with an entitlement at most to $13,495 in fees. Plaintiffs in reply reiterates the reasonableness of the request, the lack of specific challenge to any particular entry, and, finally, the motion was timely filed and served.
It remains undisputed the action was neither dismissed nor any judgment entered. GM contends the motion is untimely. Plaintiff maintains the motion is governed under Code of Civil Procedure 1005, subdivision (b), and the provisions under California Rules of Court rules 3.1702 and 8.104 are not applicable.
A motion for attorney fees must be served and filed within the time for the filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1702(b)(1).) The time for the filing of a notice of appeal in an unlimited action is 60 days if a “Notice of Entry” of Judgment was served by the court clerk or a party to the action, or within 180 days of entry of judgment. (California Rules of Court rule 8.104.) The court finds no exception to the rule requiring a preceding judgment in the subject action, and the conclusive dismissal of the rule by Plaintiff and reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), while appropriate to service from the time of the hearing, in no way addresses the fundamental underlying basis for recovery. (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, 212; Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1308, 1337-1338.)
The court therefore declines to consider the merits of the motion unless and until a judgment is entered. Again, the court will not rely on legally unsupported argument for consideration. The court otherwise finds no statutory bar to the potential recovery of fees and costs pending conclusion of the action. The court will continue the action for 90 days pending entry of a judgment. If Plaintiffs wish to instead persist on their position as to the propriety of the action as is, the court will set a separate hearing requiring legally supported supplemental briefs of no more than five pages per side, with a further continuance of the hearing on fees itself after the supplemental brief hearing and decision.
The court will concurrently conduct the two OSCs.
Plaintiffs to give notice.