Case Number: BC617457 Hearing Date: May 01, 2018 Dept: 53

ivan rosales vs. ford motor company, et al. ; BC617457, MAY 1, 2018

[Tentative] Order RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

Plaintiffs IVAN ROSALES AND RODOLFO ROSALES’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees of $17,592.50 and costs in the amount of $8,163.58.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ivan Rosales and Rodolfo Rosales (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on April 20, 2016 against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). The Complaint asserted causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and the Magnuson-Moss Act stemming from the purchase by Plaintiffs of a 2012 Ford Fusion, which was purchased for $30,681.50.

On July 28, 2017, Ford served an offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for $95,000, which constituted Plaintiffs’ maximum recovery. On August 15, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs accepted the 998 offer.

Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $37,172.50, for a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 in the amount of $18,586.25, and an award of costs of $8,163.58. Ford opposes.
EVIDENCE

The Court grants Ford’s request for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection to the request.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek a determination of awardable fees as calculated by the lodestar method. “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. … The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (PLCM Grp. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (internal citations omitted).) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Bd. Of Trustees Of California State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)

Plaintiffs were represented by two law firms during this lawsuit: Knight Law Group (“KLG”) and Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak (“HDMN”). From March 2016 to the present, KLG billed 78.1 hours for services rendered. (Mikhov Decl., Ex. A.) From May 2017 to the present, HDMN billed 28 hours for services rendered. (Daghighian Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiffs request an applicable hourly attorney billing rate ranging from $250 to $500 for KLG as follows: Steve Mikhov, $500/hour, Russell Higgins, $400/hour, Amy Morse, Constance Morrison, Christopher Swanson, and Kristina Stephenson-Cheang, all at $350/hour, and Deepak Devabose and Michael Ouziel, both at $250/hour. The billing rates for HDMN are as follows: Sepehr Daghighian, $400/hour, Larry Casuita, $300/hour, and paralegal Kevin Yaghoubzadeh, $75/hour. For all of the above-named attorneys, Mikhov and Daghighian attest to the rates and experience of the other attorneys in their respective law firms.

The Court finds that the rates requested by Plaintiffs for Mr. Daghighian and Mr. Mikhov are not reasonable and therefore reduces Mr. Mikhov’s rate to $400/hour and Mr. Daghighian’s rate to $350/hour. Ford objects to the fees request on the grounds that the case was overstaffed with 11 attorneys (though the Court notes that there were 10 attorneys and 1 paralegal), 2 law firms, and resulted in inefficient litigation. For a case that did not present particularly complex or unique issues, which did not require any discovery motions, and which did not go to trial, the Court finds that a reasonable number of attorneys is one partner and one associate. Therefore, the Court will only grant those fees requested by Mr. Mikhov, Mr. Swanson, Mr. Daghighian, and Ms. Casruita. The Court further finds that the reasonable hourly rate for the associate attorneys is $300/hour.

Additionally, Ford objects to the fees incurred by Plaintiffs between July 28, 2017 (when the 998 offer was served) and August 15, 2017 (when the 998 offer was executed). The Court finds that the fees incurred during this time period were reasonable and so declines to subtract fees for this reason.

Based on the foregoing, KLG’s fees are set as follows:

· Mr. Mikhov: 10.9 hours x $400/hour = $4,360

· Ms. Swanson: 15.9 hours x $300/hour = $4,770

Based on the foregoing, HDMN’s fees are set as follows:

· Mr. Daghighian: 16.25 hours x $350/hour = $5,687.50

· Mr. Castruita: 9.25 hours x $300/hour = $2,775.00

The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the total amount of $17,592.50.

Plaintiffs seek an adjustment to their attorneys’ fee request by a lodestar multiplier of 1.5. “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant here, (1) the novelty and difficult 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. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.) The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131-1132.)

The Court finds that although Plaintiffs’ case was taken on a contingency basis, this by itself is not a sufficient reason to impose a multiplier. Further, the Court notes that this case did not present particularly complex or unique issues. It is a kind of case both plaintiffs’ and defense counsel have tried numerous times and involve similar issues, both legally and factually. Therefore, the Court declines to grant the request for a multiplier.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees of $17,592.50 and costs in the amount of $8,163.58.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: May 1, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court