CALDERON, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Plaintiffs Itzy Calderon and Edgar Arreygue’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is ruled upon as follows.

This is a Lemon Law action involving Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

Plaintiff initially filed this consumer warranty action on July 29, 2025. On September 8, 2025, GM filed its responsive pleading. In November 2025, Plaintiff and GM produced their statutory

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018018: CALDERON, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 8C

initial disclosures pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26. Mediation was scheduled for and occurred on December 17, 2025, which resulted in a settlement in principle. Throughout the duration of the litigation, no vehicle inspection occurred, and no discovery motions or dispositive motions were prepared. No depositions were taken by Plaintiff or GM. This case included the exchange of initial disclosures, exchange of emails to coordinate the requirements of the parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, mediation, and settlement discussions. (Rodriguez Decl., ¶¶ 3-6, 14-15.)

On December 17, 2025, the Parties reached a resolution of this matter at mediation, whereby Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action and return the subject vehicle to Defendant General Motors LLC in exchange for $71,263.73, inclusive of the outstanding loan balance, plus Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. (David Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)

Pursuant to the settlement, “[r]easonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code shall be determined by the court by way of a noticed motion,” and that “Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of said fee motion.” . (David Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)

Pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d), as the prevailing party, an award of attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff is mandatory:

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.

(Civ. Code § 1794(d).)

Plaintiffs now move for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the total amount of $20,032.89. This requested amount consists of $19,311.50 in attorney fees and $721.39 in costs.

GM opposes the motion, arguing that the amount requested by Plaintiffs is unreasonable because (1) the hourly rates assigned to attorneys and staff at the Law Offices of Jon Jacobs are high given the nature of the litigation and are only supported by hearsay evidence and are further unsupported because expertise or skill was not required to resolve this Lemon Law case, and there was nothing extraordinary about this Lemon Law case; and (2) the amount of time billed for certain entries by both attorneys and paralegals is unreasonable.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018018: CALDERON, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 8C

Fee Calculation

A party seeking attorneys' fees “is not necessarily entitled to compensation for the value of attorney services according to its own notion or to the full extent claimed by [it].” (Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914, 950; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 813-814.) A party seeking fees has the 'burden of showing the fees incurred were 'allowable,' were 'reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,' and were 'reasonable in amount.'' (Levy, 4 Cal.App.4th at 816.) As noted in PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, the trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee in accordance with principles of equity. (Id. at p.1095.)

“‘It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court .... The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount Involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.'” (PLCM Group, Inc., supra, at pp. 1095-1096.)

A reasonable hourly rate “is the product of a multiplicity of factors,” Including the general market rate. (See Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003-1004.) “The determination of the 'market rate' is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 701.)

Rates

Here, Attorney David requests a rate of $795 per hour. All paralegals seek a rate of $250 per hour. Attorney Jon Jacobs requests a rate of $945 per hour.

GM essentially argues that these rates are unreasonably high given the simplicity of the case and that these rates are not the prevailing rates in the community.

Plaintiffs argue, “Once a fee applicant makes a prima facie showing that its rates and hours are reasonable, the burden shifts to the opposing party to rebut that showing with evidence. (National Assn. of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense (D.C. Cir. 1982) 675 F.2d 1319, 1326.) GM has produced none.”

First, the Court notes that National Assn. of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense is not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018018: CALDERON, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 8C

a California case and is not binding on this Court.

Next, after considering many factors, including the nature of the Lemon Law litigation, its relatively low difficulty, the amount of time involved in this matter, the skill employed, the result, and the Court’s experience with the reasonable market rates in this community, the Court finds the requested rates to be unreasonably high.

The Court therefore reduces the rate of Attorney David to $575 per hour and the rate of Attorney Jon Jacobs to $700 per hour. The Court finds the paralegal rate of $250 per hour to be reasonable.

Amount of Time

GM argues that many of the billing entries are duplicative or padded. However, the Court finds the amount of time spent by Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable.

GM also objects to Plaintiffs’ request for four (4) additional hours of attorney time ($3,180) to review the opposition, prepare a reply and conclude this matter. The Court agrees that this request is somewhat excessive and thus reduces Plaintiffs’ request for additional fees to 2 hours at the rate of $575 per hour, or $1,150.00.

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED at the reduced rate of $575 per hour Attorney David, the reduced rate of $700 per hour for Attorney Jon Jacobs, and the requested rate of $250 per hour for paralegals.

Plaintiffs’ requested total time is reduced by two hours as explained above.

Plaintiffs’ motion for costs in the amount of $721.39 is GRANTED.

While Plaintiffs provide the Court with each biller’s proposed rate, the total fees sought, and an exhibit showing Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billing entries, Plaintiffs fail to inform the Court how much time each biller spent on the case.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is instructed to draft a proposed order including the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Court’s ruling above and to meet and confer with GM regarding the calculated total no later than June 24, 2026.

If the parties cannot come to an agreement as to the calculated amount pursuant to the Court’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018018: CALDERON, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 8C

ruling above, then the partis shall each submit a declaration regarding the calculation, not to exceed two pages, no later than July 8, 2026, and there will be a continued hearing on this matter on July 29, 2026 at 1:30pm in Department 8C.

If the parties agree to the calculation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall submit a proposed order no later than July 8, 2026, and the Court will issue the order without need for further hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.