Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV26651, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26651    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 45

Lynn PAK WILSON v. MERCEDES-BENZ

motion for attorneys’ fees

Date of Hearing:          June 11, 2025                         Trial Date:       N/A

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         24STCV26651

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Lynn Wilson

Responding Party:       Mercedes-Benz

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Lynn Pak Wilson (“Plaintiff”) seeks statutorily authorized attorney fees,

costs, and expenses following the acceptance by Plaintiff of a Section 998 offer made by defendant, which included the ability to move for reasonable attorney fees.  Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $18,590.00 and costs in the amount of $1,202.48 plus a

"lodestar multiplier" of 1.1 in the amount of $1,859.00 for a total of $21,651.48.  The Section 998 offer agreed to pay plaintiff $28,000 in exchange for which plaintiff would return the vehicle.  

Defendant opposes the fees on the ground that this was a straightforward claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d), which settled almost immediately upon defendant being informed of the claim.   Further, defendant points out that plaintiff incurred only minimal fees at the time it accepted the Section 998 offer, continued to unnecessarily pad its bills, and has shown no entitlement to a multiplier, given the routine nature of the case and plaintiff’s use of templated pleadings and letters to advance its claims. 

The amount of any fee award must be determined by the “lodestar” method. (Serrano v

Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.)  Under this method, the base or “lodestar” is determined by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate for these services. (20 Cal.3d at 48.) The lodestar also includes compensation for time spent obtaining fees: “Absent special circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney fee award should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.” (Ketchum v Moses (2001) 24 C4th 1122, 1133 (emphasis in original).)

The court finds that plaintiff’s hourly charge of $525 is reasonable and supported by the evidence, based on counsel’s experience, education and qualifications. 

Turning to the hours expended, the court finds that some of the hours are excessive in light of plaintiff’s counsel’s experience and the routine nature of this case.  Spending 12.5 hours on the fee motion is excessive given that most of the information contained in the motion is identical in all such cases, justifying a reduction of 7 hours.  The court also reduces the hours charged by 3.5 hours to reflect block billing and excessive billing on routine review of materials, for example, reviewing the proof of service, reviewing the notice of case management conference with the client, reviewing the notice of case assignment, and the like.  The court also finds that some of the work performed after the Section 998 was accepted appears to be duplicative or intended to drive up fees. Specifically, the court finds unreasonable .5 hours to review the answer, .3 to review notice of case assignment and conduct research, .5 to draft and review  the notice of settlement; and .3 for further “review” on April 11, 2025.  In sum, the court reduces the lodestar by 12.1 hours, for a total reduction of $6352.50. 

As for the request for a multiplier of the lodestar, the court agrees that this was a routine case, in which plaintiff used template letters, complaints and briefs.  There was nothing novel, challenging or difficult about the case.   The results obtained by plaintiff were modest.  Accordingly, the court finds that awarding any lodestar to plaintiff is inappropriate.   

As for costs, defendant objects to all costs other than the filing fee of $435, cost of service of the Complaint at $30.00, and the fees hearing reservation fee of $61.50, or a total of   $526.50.   The court agrees that plaintiff is not entitled to $200 for a “mechanical consultant,” and that many of the other costs should be viewed as overhead, rather than recoverable costs.   Accordingly, the court reduces the costs sought by the $200 for the consultant; $135.00 for the unnecessary delivery of courtesy copies to the court; $75 in unspecified research costs which are properly viewed as overhead, and $100 for copies on various dates, or a total of $510.  Thus, plaintiff is entitled to a total of $692.48 in costs. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to $12,237.50 as its lodestar amount.  Plaintiff has not shown any basis for awarding a multiplier.  As explained above, this was a routine lemon law case, with modest results.  As for the costs, the court finds that the costs are properly awarded in this case in the amount of $692.48.  

Defendant to file a proposed judgment within 10 days.