Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 21STCV15943, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15943    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IS GRANTED, IN PART

Plaintiffs’ counsel, The Knight Law Group, LLP’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards $ $8,531.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,246.00 in costs and expenses. 

Background 

This lemon law action is based on the purchase of a 2018 Ford EcoSport (“Subject Vehicle”) by plaintiffs Jesus Cecilia Coronel Flores aka Jesus Cecilia C. Flores and Angel Flores Zarogoza (collectively “Plaintiffs”) from nonparty dealer Puente Hills Ford, under a Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision) (“Sales Contract”). The Plaintiffs allege that the Subject Vehicle has defects in breach of certain warranties under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”). 

On April 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this Complaint against defendants: 1) El Centro Motors, a repair facility; and (2) Ford Motor Company (collectively “Defendants”), the Subject Vehicle’s manufacturer. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action, of which only the first three are asserted against defendant Ford, and the fourth is only asserted against ECM: 

1)     Violation of the Song-Beverly Act (“SBA”) – Breach of Express Warranty;

2)     Violation of the SBA – Breach of Implied Warranty; and

3)     Violation of the SBA – Section 1793.2;

4)     Negligent Repair. 

On April 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement. 

On September 01, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. 

On September 15, 2022, the Defendants filed opposing papers.

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply. 

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 

Plaintiffs filed evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Hannah Miller ISO Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses. 

Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections pertain to statements about fee motions by KLG in other cases. The Court may consider rates awarded in other matters to determine the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates. (See Davis v City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 904; Margolin v Regional Planning Comm'n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1005.) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED in their entirety. 

Discussion 

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Vehicle for $44.298.56. Plaintiffs subsequently filed this instant suit alleging that Defendant Ford breached its express and implied warranty obligations under the Song-Beverly Act and that El Centro Motors negligently repaired the vehicle. 

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs served Ford with CCP 998 Offer for $73,500.00 and the surrender of the subject vehicle. Defendant Ford accepted the offer on April 24, 2022. (Mot. Ex. D.) Therefore, it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing party. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Knight Law Group, LLP (KLG), seeks a total of $19,560.41 in fees composed of $11,786.00 in attorney fees, $1,881.41 in costs, and a 0.5 lodestar multiplier resulting in an additional $5,893.00. 

i.          KLG’s Hourly Rate 

The hourly rates for Plaintiffs’ firm, Knight Law Group (KLG) are as follows:

For hourly rates, “the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436.) Courts may rely on their “own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (Id. at 437 [citations omitted].) 

Defendants assert that KLG has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the rates requested, up to $550.00 for partners and $425.00 for associates, are reasonable for Los Angeles County. (Miller Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9, Ex. A, C.) Defendants refer to district court cases to support the finding that $325.00 for partners and $225.00 for associates, is the reasonable rate. (Id.) In particular, Defendants rely on Arias v. Ford Motor Company, No. EDCV181928PSGSPX, 2020 WL 1940843 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020). The Court notes that the reduced hourly rate in Arias was based on the 2018 Real Rate Report. Though Defendants cite more recent cases from 2020, Defendants do not explain if KLG’s hourly rates were similarly reduced and the basis for that reduction reduction. 

Moreover, although the Court finds that the district court cases cited by Defendants to be instructive, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to support the hourly rates charged by KLG in recent cases which have been upheld by other superior court judges from Los Angeles County. (See Kirnos Decl. Ex. E-Z.) 

Furthermore, the Declaration of KLP’s managing partner, Roger Kirnos, attesting to the hourly rate of each of the attorneys working on this case, is entitled to a presumption of credence absent evidence that the records are erroneous. (Horsford, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 396.) 

The Court finds that KLG’s requested hourly rates are reasonable and do not warrant a fee reduction. 

ii.         KLG Used Multiple Timekeepers 

Defendants take issue with the fact that nine different timekeepers worked on the matter. Yet, Defendants fail to meet their burden and point to specific time entries that are duplicative. The fact that the case utilized multiple attorneys is not by itself sufficient to reduce the hourly rate absent a showing of inefficiency, duplicative efforts, and unreasonable time spent on a particular task. (See Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38.)

 iii.       Specific Billing Entries Objected to By Defendants 

a.         Time Spent Drafting Attorney’s Fees Motion 

Defendants take issue with the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks 13.00 hours for drafting this fee motion, which is approximately 36% of the total litigation. Billed at a rate of $450.00, Plaintiffs’ counsel billed 4.2 hours to draft the Attorney’s Fees Motion, including expenses and supporting declaration. Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates spending 2.0 hours reviewing and analyzing opposing papers, 4.0 hours drafting a reply, and 1.0 hours to appear at the hearing telephonically. 

Having reviewed the moving papers, the Court agrees that the 11.2 hours anticipated to be spent on this motion, totaling $5,040.00, is excessive. The Court awards 5.0 hours for work down in drafting, reviewing, replying, and appearing at the hearing for this motion, at a billing rate of $450.00 per hour. 

Accordingly, $2,790.00 will be deducted from the lodestar. 

b.         Time Spent Reviewing and Auditing Billing 

Defendants also object to the 0.3 hours charged on August 26, 2022, at a billing rate of $500.00 per hour, for “review and auditing billing” in anticipation of this Motion. Defendants assert that the fee is not recoverable because it is an administrative task. (See Jameson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18cv1952 ODW (AS), 2019 WL 6840758, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) [striking Knight Law’s fees for “review and audit billing”]. 

The Court agrees. (See Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320 [reducing the award by discounting hours billed].) Accordingly, 0.3 hours will be deducted, meaning $150.00 will be reduced from the lodestar amount. 

c.         Duplicative Billing 

Defendants assert that KLG billed 0.40 hours ($118) by various attorneys for duplicative tasks labeled as a meeting between attorneys. The billing entry in question appears to pertain to an October 05, 2021 task billed at an hourly rate of $295.00 per hour for “Conduct work up facts and damages analysis of the case in light of Ford’s recent verbal settlement offer and confer with CS re same.” The Court finds that the 0.40 hours billed or 24 minutes, was reasonable and in furtherance of the litigation and no deductions will be made. 

Defendants fail to point to other instances of duplicative billing and a review of KLG’s billing records finds no other indications of duplicative billing. 

d.         Block Billing

Defendants argue that 1.20 hours, totaling $540.00, should be excluded due to block billing since it makes it difficult for the court to determine how much time was spent on particular activities. 

On February 10, 2022, at a rate of $450.00 per hour, KLG billed 1.2 hours for “Review Court’s tentative ruling; appear at Defendant’s MTCA; draft results.” Defendants rely on two district cases, Luna v. FCA US LLC No. 217CV08272ODWRAOX, 2020 WL 491462 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2020) and Welch v. Metro, Life Ins. Co. 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), to support the proposition that fees should be reduced for block billing. However, the Defendants have failed to cite any non-federal appellate case in support of its proposition. 

KLG asserts that “trial courts are granted discretion ‘to penalize [block billing] when the practice prevents them from discerning which tasks are compensable and which are not.’ [Citation.].” (In re Marriage of Nassimi (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 667, 695.) Here, KLG asserts that all of the block entries are compensable since Plaintiffs’ counsel needed to review the tentative ruling, appear at the hearing to oppose Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and draft results. 

The Court finds KLG’s argument is unavailing because it is unclear what “draft results” pertains to  and why that cost was necessary when KLG has already billed for reviewing the motion and drafting opposing papers. The Court exercises its discretion and reduces the amount requested to 0.5 hours of work since the Court cannot determine if the amount sought for each task was reasonable and in furtherance of the litigation. (See Christian Research Institute, supra, 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1324 [the use of block billing obscured the nature of some of the work claimed].) Although detailed time records are not required, California Courts have expressed a preference for contemporaneous billing and an explanation of work. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375. 

According, the Court only awards 0.5 hours or $224.00 for the work and a deducts $315.00 from the lodestar amount. 

e.         Costs and Expenses 

Civil Code section 1794 subdivision (d) provides that a prevailing buyer can recover “costs and expenses… determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred.” “Expenses” are broader than “costs” under the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) “If the items on a verified cost bill appear proper charges, they are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred.” (Seever v. Copley Press, Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) 

Defendants argue that the $1,881.41 that Plaintiffs seek in costs should be entirely denied because KLG failed to provide any evidence that the costs were reasonably incurred. 

The Court notes that on September 01, 2022, KLG filed a verified memorandum of costs. “A verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Bender¿v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 968, 989.)

In addition, KLG filed the Declaration of Jacob Cutler, who provides an internal worksheet used to draft the Memorandum of Costs. (Cutler Decl. Ex. A.) 

Although Defendants oppose any new evidence introduced by Plaintiffs for the first time in the reply, because the Cutler declaration provides detailed information submitted in the memorandum of costs, the Court will consider the declaration and the attached exhibit. (See Cutler Decl. Ex. A) 

In particular, the Defendants object to the $65.00 charge for “Appearance Attorneys” and $635.00 for court reporter fees for a hearing on this motion. 

The Court finds the $65.00 for Appearance Attorneys reasonable. However, the Court agrees that the court reporter fee of $635.00 billed in anticipation of this hearing, was not billed in furtherance of the litigation and is not justified. Accordingly, the $635.00 is taxed from Plaintiff’s costs. 

iv.        Multiplier 

Fee multipliers are available for Song-Beverly Act cases. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 822.) Multipliers may be awarded based on numerous factors including “(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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) 

Defendants object to the 0.5 lodestar enhancement, totaling $5,893.00 because the case was not complex or novel. This Court agrees. The Court also agrees that the Plaintiffs’ firm, KLG, has not provided evidence that it was precluded from other employment as a result of this litigation. 

Accordingly, the Court will not apply a multiplier. The lodestar attorney fees adequately address the contingent nature of counsel’s representation. (See Horsford, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 395.) 

            v.         Adjusted Lodestar 

KLG unadjusted Lonestar is $11,786.00. With the deductions, ($2,790.00, $150.00, and $315.00), the adjusted lode star is $8,531.00. No multiplier will be applied 

Deducting the $635.00 in court reporter fees, Plaintiff will recover $1,246.00 in costs and expenses. 

Conclusion 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, The Knight Law Group, LLP’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court awards $ $8,531.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,246.00 in costs and expenses. 

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.