Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV28745, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gladis N. Velasquez Herrera and Defendants Ford Motor Company and Autonation Ford Torrance have reached a settlement in this Song-Beverly action. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees, along with a memorandum of costs.

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is 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.)

Plaintiff requests a total of $35,796.60, consisting of $27,030.00 in attorney fees, $657.60 in costs and expenses, and $8,109.00 as a 0.3 multiplier enhancement on the attorney fees.

Plaintiff provides a copy of counsel’s billing records. (Khoubian Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel requests an hourly rate of $425. (Khoubian Decl. ¶ 19.) Based on counsel’s experience, the type of case, and the market rate, the Court concludes that $425 is a reasonable hourly rate for this matter.

Defendants note that 8.4 hours were billed for the business decision of determining whether to represent Plaintiff. (Opposition at p. 7.) Defendant argues that “[o]nly fees ‘reasonably incurred by the buyer’ are recoverable,” and Plaintiff “did not incur any fees before he was represented by Alpha thus these fees are not recoverable against Ford.” (Ibid.) A Plaintiff may reasonable attorney fees based on actual time expended and “reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) Some of the identified time was “in connection with the commencement” of this action and is recoverable. However, the Court agrees that some of the time is excessive. The Court deducts 5.4 hours.

Defendant argues that almost every document used by Plaintiff’s counsel is a form document used in prior cases, so the 2.4 hours spent on the form complaint and 6.6 hours on template discovery requests are excessive. (Opposition at p. 7.) 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. Defendant proves this by providing copies of Plaintiff’s discovery requests here and those propounded in another action with the same counsel. (Proudfoot Decl. ¶ 7 & Exs. C-D.) The Court agrees that the 9.0 hours spent on form pleadings is excessive. The Court deducts 6 hours.

Defendants argue that the time incurred for this fee motion is unreasonable because “Ford’s initial offer included $9,500 in attorney’s fees compared to the $5,610 Alpha had billed actually representing [Plaintiff],” and Plaintiff’s counsel “never responded to the fee offer or made any demands to resolve fees prior to filing this motion.” (Opposition at p. 7.) Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and expenses whether by agreement or by motion. However, the Court agrees that the 14.1 hours spent on this motion is excessive. The Court deducts 7 hours.

In sum, the Court deducts $7,820.00 (18.4 hours) from the $27,030.00 requested, for a total of $19,210.00.

“[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 and did not involve complex or novel legal issues warranting a multiplier. There are no indications that Plaintiff’s counsel provided uniquely exceptional representation or engaged in any actions different from a typical strategy to achieve settlement. The Court declines to add a multiplier.

The motion for attorney fees and expenses is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff $19,210.00 in attorney fees and $657.60 in costs and expenses.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court