Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV26307, Date: 2022-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26307    Hearing Date: November 22, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Kimberly Jensen and Paul Jensen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a notice of settlement of this case, which alleged breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.  Under the settlement, Plaintiffs are the prevailing party, and Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney fees.  (Ledbetter Decl., Ex 1, ¶ 3.)  On October 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

As the prevailing party, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.  (Civil 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 (Ketchum).)  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.)

Plaintiffs seek $22,239.83 in attorney fees and expenses plus a 1.5 multiplier ($11,119.92), for a total of $33,359.75.

Plaintiffs’ counsel charges various hourly rates: $400 or $425 for Thomas K. Ledbetter; $350 for Amie T. Jacoby; and $200 for paralegal Keily Deluis.  (Ledbetter Decl. ¶ 11.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of a reasonable rate for counsel’s attorneys in Los Angeles.  (Opposition at p. 4.)  Mr. Ledbetter has been practicing primarily in lemon law for over fifteen years, and Ms. Jacoby has thirty years of legal experience including four years in lemon law.  (Ledbetter Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  Based on counsel’s experience, the type of case, and the market rate, the Court concludes that $350 is a reasonable hourly rate for all attorneys on this matter.

Plaintiffs’ counsel provides an invoice reflecting 53.9 hours billed, including 5 hours anticipatorily billed in connection with this motion, for a total of $21,397.50 in attorney fees.  (Ledbetter Decl., Ex. 2.)  After adjusting Mr. Ledbetter’s 50.4 hours from a rate of $400 or $425 to the reduced rate of $350, the new attorney fees total is $18,515.00.

Defendant argues 1.4 hours billed for the initial call with Plaintiffs and 0.4 hours billed for preparing an attorney-client agreement are administrative matters that are not properly billed.  (Opposition at pp. 5-6.)  The Court finds that these hours are reasonable.

Defendant also identifies 16.3 hours for reviewing, preparing, and finalizing Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendant’s discovery requests; 6.5 hours for reading Defendant’s written discovery responses; 1.6 hours for preparing Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and deposition notice for Defendant’s PMQ; and 9.8 hours for this fee motion.  (Opposition at p. 6.)  As the Court observes in the multitude of Song-Beverly cases on the docket, experienced counsel have pre-written form pleadings, discovery requests, discovery responses, and motion papers they use in these cases.  Indeed, Plaintiffs’ counsel engages in this common practice.  (See Brar Decl. ¶¶ 4, 10 & Exs. A-B, E.)  For these identified tasks totally 34.2 hours, the Court finds that a reasonable amount of time is 18 hours.  (See Kerkeles v. City of San Jose (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 102 [“When a ‘voluminous fee application’ is made, the court may . . . ‘make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure.’”].)  This results in a deduction of $5,670.00 (16.2 hours at $350). 

Plaintiffs requests a lodestar multiplier of 1.5.  (Motion at pp. 7-9.)  “[A] trial court should award a multiplier for exceptional representation only when the quality of representation far exceeds the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation.”  (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1139.)  This was a basic lemon law case, on the simple side because it lacked any motion practice, depositions, third-party discovery, experts, or litigated discovery disputes.  (See Brar Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12.)  This matter was not noticeably different from other lemon law cases, did not involve complex or novel legal issues warranting a multiplier, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience litigating similar matters.  (See Ledbetter Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)  Although Plaintiffs ultimately obtained a buyback of the vehicle, there are no indications Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in any actions different from a typical strategy to achieve this result.  No multiplier is justified.

Plaintiffs also request $842.33 in costs and expenses.  (Motion at p. 9; Ledbetter Decl., Ex. 2 at p. 9.)  Defendant argues that the costs incurred for posting jury fees and filing this “completely unnecessary motion for attorneys’ fees” are unnecessary and should be stricken.  (Opposition at p. 10.)  These costs are statutorily allowable and reasonable.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(1).)

The motion for attorney fees is GRANTED IN PART.  The Court awards Plaintiffs $12,845.00 in attorney fees ($18,515.00 at the reduced hourly rate minus $5,670.00) and $842.33 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 22nd day of November 2022