Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV21059, Date: 2022-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21059    Hearing Date: November 15, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff Edwin Blanco filed a notice of settlement with Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC in this Song-Beverly case.  Under the settlement, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs.  (Moroe Decl., Ex. 3.)  On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs, and on October 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs and a motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICES

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied, as the total fee awards in other cases and other courts are not relevant.

DISCUSSION

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.  (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)  California courts apply the “lodestar” approach to determine what fees are reasonable.  (See, e.g., Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.)  This inquiry “begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  From there, the “lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.”  (Ibid.)  Relevant factors include “(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, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)  The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.  (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.)

Plaintiff seeks $48,317.00 in attorney fees and $4,407.05 in costs and expenses, for a total of $52,724.05.  (Motion at p. 2; Reply at pp. 4-5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel charges an hourly rate of $450 or $515.  (See Moore Decl., Ex. 24.)  Counsel’s rate increased to $515 around June 22, 2022.  (Id. at p. 18.)  Defendant argues that the rate is excessive.  (Opposition at pp. 2, 6.)  The Court agrees that this rate is excessive, and for the 15.2 hours billed at $515, the Court reduces the rate to a reasonable rate of $450.  This results in a deduction of $988.00 ($65 hourly difference for 15.2 hours).

Plaintiff provides billing records reflecting 97.1 hours billed.  (Moore Decl., Ex. 24.)  Defendant does not identify specific items that it believes are excessive.  Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s counsel overbilled and was inefficient, and he billed for items involving the dealership.  (Opposition at p. 5.)

Plaintiff filed this action on June 4, 2020.  The parties participated in mediation on June 18, 2021.  They engaged in discovery, including written discovery and depositions.  There are no other defendants in this action, so even if discovery related to the dealership, Defendant has not shown that it was unnecessary or improperly billed.  Defendant filed pretrial documents in June 2022.  Aside from stipulations and ex parte applications to continue trial, there was no motion practice.  Thus, this was a basic lemon law case, on the simple side because it lacked any litigated discovery disputes.  On the other hand, Plaintiff’s counsel was preparing for trial, with the notice of settlement filed only four days before the Final Status Conference and ten days before the trial date.  Based on the Court’s review of the case file and Plaintiff’s billing records, the amount of time billed is reasonable.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff does not explain “what Melanie Say was doing for the case or billing for, as it only states the cost not what the actual task was, so there is no way to know if this is reasonable.”  (Opposition at p. 5.)  The billing records’ entries for Melanie Say and others are not billed with an hourly notation, but as individual items that correspond to the costs and other expenses, such as filing fees.  Because these are expenses, not improperly vague attorney billing, Defendant has not shown a basis for deducting these entries.  And Defendant does not contest the reasonableness of any items on the verified memorandum of costs.

Plaintiff’s counsel billed 6.8 hours ($3,502.00) for the motion, analyzing the opposition, and drafting the reply.  (Moore Reply Decl., Ex. 1.)  As with the other billing entries, the Court reduces the reasonable rate to $450 (from $515).  This results in a deduction of $442.00 ($65 hourly difference for 6.8 hours).

Defendant did not challenge Plaintiff’s request for $4,407.05 in costs and expenses.

CONCLUSION

The motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses is GRANTED IN PART.  The Court awards Plaintiff $46,887.00 in attorney fees ($48,317.00 minus $1,430.00) and $4,407.05 in costs and expenses.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

      Dated this 15th day of November 2022