Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV36578, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36578    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 45

Montufar v. general motors, llc

motion for attorneys’ fees

Date of Hearing:          June 4, 2025                           Trial Date:       N/A

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         21STCV36578

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Karen Montufar

Responding Party:       General Motors, LLC

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff KAREN JEAN MONTUFAR (“Plaintiff”) seeks statutorily authorized attorney fees,

costs, and expenses following a settlement for $10,000 obtained in this “Lemon Law” lawsuit under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”), Cal. Civ. Code §

1794(d).  Despite this modest settlement and the routine nature of this case, plaintiff seeks for award of $47,469.20, consisting of (1)  $26,246.00 in attorneys’ fees for Quill & Arrow, LLP (“QA”); (2) a 1.5 multiplier enhancement on the attorney fees (or $13,123.00); (3) $2,100.20 in costs incurred by QA; and (4) an additional $6,000.00 for Plaintiff’s counsel to review Defendant’s Opposition; draft the Reply; and

attend the hearing on this Motion. Defendant opposes the motion as untimely and also challenges the fees as excessive given the routine nature of this litigation and the boilerplate pleadings used by plaintiff. 

The court disagrees with defendant’s primary argument that this motion is untimely.   While it is correct that there was an unexplainable delay in the period between plaintiff accepting the Section 998 offer and moving for fees, there is no statutory deadline for applying for fees in this situation – before judgment has been entered.  Plaintiff’s delay in seeking fees, however, undermines any argument that plaintiff’s counsel might be entitled to a multiplier due to the contingent nature of the case.  

As for the fees themselves, the court agrees that this was  a routine case, in which plaintiff regularly used the same briefs, motions and discovery requests that has used in other litigation.   The court has no objection to the hourly rates charged, which are reasonable and commensurate with community standard.  However, there was nothing novel, challenging or difficult about the case.   The results obtained by plaintiff were extremely slight and might be viewed as a nuisance value settlement from the defendant’s viewpoint.  Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s lodestar is excessive and does not reflect the reasonable value of the services provided.  The court finds that the proper lodestar should be reduced by 25 % of the amount sought to reflect the excessive amount of hours claimed to recreate work that had already been created in other cases.   Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to $19,684.50 as its lodestar amount, plus an additional $1000 for preparing the reply brief, for a total lodestar of $20,684.50.  Plaintiff has not shown any basis for awarding a multiplier.  As explained above, this was a routine lemon law case, with lackluster results, in which plaintiff failed to move for its attorney fees for more than a year and a half, evidencing that taking the case on contingency posed no burden for their counsel.  As for the costs, the court finds that the costs are properly awarded in this case in the amount of $2100.20.  

Plaintiff to file a proposed judgment within 10 days.