Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV28892, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28892    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Angelica Reyes and Eladio Reyes and Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC have reached a settlement in this Song-Beverly action.  On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees. 

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

Plaintiffs request a total of $65,845.84, consisting of $37,416.50 in attorney fees, $18,708.25 as a lodestar enhancement, and $9,721.09 in costs and expenses.

Plaintiffs provide a copy of counsel’s billing records, which show 63.7 hours billed by Knight Law Group LLP and 23.5 hours billed by Greenberg Gross LLP.  (Kirnos Decl., Ex. A; Reyes Decl., Ex. 1.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel charges various hourly rates: $550 for Roger Kirnos; $400, $425, or $450 for Amy Morse; $375 for Evelina Chang; $295 for Elvira Kamosko; $325 or $350 for Heidi Alexander; $450 or $495 for Jacob Cutler; $345, $395, or $425 for Maite Colon; $250, $295, or $350 for Maxwell Kreymer; $345 or $395 for Marisa Melero; $325 or $375 for Sundeep Samra; $350 for Thomas Dreblow; $325 for Zachary Davina; $375 for Zachary Powell; $875 for Brian L. Williams; $650 for Brian P. Suba; and $250 for paralegal Catherine A. Driscoll.  (Kirnos Decl. ¶¶ 24-36; Reyes Decl. ¶ 12.)  The Court finds that rates of $500 are unreasonably high for such a straightforward lemon law action.

The number of attorneys on the case indicates inefficiencies.  The billing records do not show inordinate conferences or phone calls among attorneys or too many attorneys working on the same task.  However, with so many attorneys working on the case, there were some inefficiencies when each new attorney needed to review the case file to learn the case, especially when a second firm associated in.

The billing records also reflect inefficiencies in the number of hours for certain tasks, such as drafting boilerplate discovery requests and motions.  Additionally, some items are clerical in nature, such as “Review and audit time records.”  This entry is particularly troublesome because it calls into question the original accuracy of the recordkeeping.

Considering the type of case, complexity of the case, length of litigation, and the record as a whole, the Court concludes that a reasonable amount of attorney fees is $30,000.00.  (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.’”].)

Plaintiffs request a lodestar multiplier of 0.5.  “[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 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.  Despite the length of time from case inception to settlement, there are no indications that Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in any actions different from a typical strategy to achieve this result.  The Court declines to add a multiplier.

Defendant did not challenge the $9,721.09 in costs and expenses.

The motion for attorney fees is GRANTED IN PART.  The Court awards Plaintiffs $30,000.00 in attorney fees and $9,721.09 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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 23rd day of April 2024