Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV01828, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV01828    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED, IN PART

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court awards $3,575.00 in attorney’s fees, plus $130.41 in costs. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Background 

This lemon law action was filed on January 15, 2020, by Plaintiff Sam Navid against Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Does 1 to 30. 

On January 13, 2022, a Notice of Settlement was filed. 

On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs.  On April 18, 2022, the Court awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $34,540.00 in attorney fees. (Min. Or. 04/18/22.) 

On August 10, 2022, Defendant’s Motion to Tax Cost was denied. (Min. Or. 08/10/22.) 

On September 07, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental motion for attorney’s fees seeking to recover fees for fees incurred in opposing Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum of Costs. 

On September 20, 2022, Defendant filed opposing papers. Plaintiff filed a reply on September 26, 2022. 

Legal Standard 

Under the Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d) the prevailing party in an action that arises out of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is entitled to fees that were reasonably incurred:¿ “If the buyer prevails 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.” (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).)¿¿ 

The lodestar method is the primary method for determining a reasonable attorney fee award under section 1794, subdivision (d).¿ (See Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818-19.)¿ “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 [internal quotations omitted].)¿ “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.¿ [citation] 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.)¿ “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.”¿ (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.)¿ “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.”¿(Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.)¿¿ 

In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.” (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664; see also Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009 [“[R]ate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs' attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.”].) 

evidentiary Objections 

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC filed objections to the Declaration of Hovanes Margarian. Plaintiff filed a reply to the objections. 

Objection Nos. 1-3 and 5-6 are OVERRULED. 

Objection No. 4 is SUSTAINED. 

Discussion 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees seeks to recover $8,085.00 in fees and $130.41 in costs for work related to opposing Defendant’s Motion to Tax costs and for bringing this instant supplemental motion. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the fees currently requested were not included in the initial motion for attorney’s fees filed on February 17, 2022 and are not duplicative. 

Defendant opposes the Motion asserting that because Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in their opposition to the Motion to Tax costs was denied that Plaintiff’s counsel is now attempting to circumvent this Court’s order. Moreover, Defendant asserts that the fees requested by Plaintiff are excessive and should be denied. 

First, the fact that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions was denied in their opposing papers to the Motion to Tax Costs does not mean Plaintiff is seeking to circumvent this Court’s Order. Second, this Court has already reduced Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $764.00 to $550.00 for Plaintiff’s Counsel Hovhaness Margarian, thus ensuring that the hourly rate charged by Plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable. (See Min. Or. 04/18/22.)                                                               

“The court may consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.”  (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.”  (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395. Accordingly, this Court can award Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested supplemental fees in the amount this Court determines was reasonably spent in opposing Defendant’s Motion to Tax costs. 

The California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Unruh (1982) has held that Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to recover attorney’s fees for opposing fee motions, such as Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs. (32 Cal.3d 621, 639 [“We hold therefore that, absent circumstances rendering the award unjust, fees recoverable under section 1021.5 ordinarily include compensation for all hours reasonably spent, including those necessary to establish and defend the fee claim.”].) 

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that he spent 14.7 hours on this matter calculated as follows: 

The Court notes that courtesy copies are not required for fee motions, accordingly, time spent serving such copies was not necessary for the conduct of the litigation or reasonably incurred. (See Civ. Code § 1794.) 

The Court grants 3.0 hours of work to review, draft a response, and serve opposing paper to Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and 0.5 hour to appear at the hearing. The Court grants 1.0 hour to draft this supplement motion, 1.5 hours to review opposing papers and draft and serve a response, and 0.5 hour to appear at the hearing for this instant motion. 

In total the Court GRANTS $3,575.00 in attorney’s fees for 6.5 hours of work. 

Lastly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs filed on September 07, 2022, and seeing no opposition to the costs by Defendant, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request of $130.41 in costs. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court awards $3,575.00 in attorney’s fees, plus $130.41 in costs. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s counsel to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.