Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV05844, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05844 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: 45
MIRKO VUKSANOVIC vs FCA US LLC
plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and
costs
Date of Hearing: April
23, 2025 Trial
Date: N/A 45
Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV05844
Moving Party: Plaintiff Mirko Vuksanovic
Responding Party: No opposition
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff Mirko Vuksanovic filed a complaint
against Defendant FCA US, LLC for breach of implied warranty of merchantability
under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; breach of express warranty obligations
under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and Violation of Song-Beverly Warranty Act
section 1793.2.
On January 6, 2025, the parties filed a notice of settlement.
[Tentative] Ruling
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in
the reduced amount.
discussion
Plaintiff Mirko Vuksanovic moves this court for an order awarding
attorneys’ fees, court costs and litigation expenses pursuant to Civil Code
section 1794(d). Plaintiff makes the motion on the prevailing party pursuant to
Defendant’s repurchase offer and stipulation of the parties as reflected in the
Settlement Agreement and Release (“SAR”), which was fully executed by all
parties on January 7, 2025. Plaintiff moves for an order awarding $29,500.00 in
attorney fees and $1,849.57 in costs plus a lodestar multiplier of 1.1 in the
amount of $2,950.00 for a total of $34,299.57.
Under the Song-Beverly Act, Civil Code section 1794(d) “If the
buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by
the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate
amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time
expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer
in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” The
lodestar method of calculating fees is appropriate in motions for attorney’s
fees under Civil Code section 1794. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers
of California, Inc (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818.)
It is undisputed Plaintiff is the prevailing party. The parties
agreed to a cash settlement of $32,554.32 in lieu of repurchase of the Vehicle,
which was greater than a statutory repurchase of $32,034.09. (Kohen Decl., ¶¶
9-11; see Exhibits 3.) The settlement also acknowledged Plaintiff as the
prevailing party entitled to attorney fees and costs.
Hours Expended
“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or
lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and
reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the
presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008)
165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the
discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such
factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience
and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also
consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative
work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney fees for 58.4 hours spent in
this matter, including for pre-litigation hours, pre-trial hours, and
preparation and attended for this fee motion. Plaintiff maintains counsel spent
10.9 hours prior to drafting and filing this lawsuit. (Kohen Dec., ¶ 35; Exh. 1.)
This entailed meeting and communicating with the Plaintiff; reviewing the Lease
Agreement, repair records (“RO”), multitude of photos, videos and other
relevant documents; conducting legal, mechanical and factual research.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsels spent 35.1 hours before trial including drafting
a summons, complaint and cover sheets; reviewing and analyzing Defendant’s
answer; confidential communications; meeting and conferring; research;
discovery and so forth. Lastly, Plaintiff’s counsel spent and will likely spend
a total of 12.4 hours in preparation of this motion, preparing the reply brief
and attending the hearing.
The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s billed fees appear
reasonable, with the exception of $2,100.00 in anticipated fees for reviewing
Defendant’s opposition and preparing a reply brief. In light of the fact
that the instant motion is unopposed, the court declines to award these fees
because they have not been reasonably incurred.
Hourly Rate
Generally, a reasonable hourly rate is prevailing in the community
where the case is litigated for similar work. (PLCM Group v. Dexter
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 15 1084, 1095 ["PLCM"].) “The experienced trial
judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in [her]
court.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff seeks to recover attorneys’ fees for two different
attorneys who worked on this case. Plaintiff seeks $525.00 for Isaac Kohen and
$325.00 for Tamara R. Imber. Mr. Kohen attests to his and Ms. Imber’s legal
experience and the reasonableness of their rates. (Kohen Decl. ¶¶ 14-18.)
The court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated his
counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable in their community of practice in the
specialized area of law. Defendant did not file any opposition challenging the
hourly rates.
Multiplier
While the lodestar reflects the basic fee for comparable legal
services in the community, it may be adjusted based on various factors,
including “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the
skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the
litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; (3) the contingent
nature of the fee award” and (4) the success achieved. (Serrano v. Priest
(1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)
Plaintiffs request a lodestar multiplier enhancement of 1.1, which
would result in an additional award of $2,950.00. Plaintiff asserts that this
multiplier is reasonable considering the time and labor required, the
contingent nature of this action, preclusion of other employment and the
favorable result achieved for Plaintiff.
The court finds that under the circumstances of this case, a
lodestar multiplier is not appropriate. This is a straightforward case and any contingency
risk factor is already accounted for in the hourly rates, which the court has
found to be reasonable.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in
the reduced amount of $27,400.00.
Costs
Plaintiff moves for costs in the amount
of $1,849.57. (Kohen Decl. Exh 2.) The
court finds those costs to be reasonably incurred and recoverable in this
case. (Jensen v. BMW of North
America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137-138, disapproved on other
grounds, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th
189).
Accordingly, the court awards $27,400 in
fees and $1849.57 in costs to plaintiffs.
Plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment within 10 days.