SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 06/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV428612 Plaza Services, LLC vs Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment George Berry Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 1

LINE 2 24CV434201 Balbinder Kaur vs Motion: Attorneys Fees & Costs General Motors, LLC LINES 3-4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain vs Hearing: Motion to Strike Santa Clara Public Hearing: Demurrer Defender’s Office et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 5-6 25CV460503 Roy Toledo vs D.H. Motion: Sanctions & Protective Order Smith Company, Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV471073 John Doe L.M., an Motion: Compel individual, vs Craig Chandler et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to Line 7) LINES 8 25CV478936 Ari Lazier vs Walnut Hearing: Petition Compel Creek Ford et al Arbitration

Please scroll down to Line 8

9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 25CV468267 Mercy Falls, LLC vs Motion: Withdraw as attorney United Security Specialists, Inc. et al Notice is proper. No opposition received. Attorney Jacqueline Simonovich’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Mercy Falls LLC is GRANTED.

Movant to e-file Form MC-053 within 2 days of the hearing. Movant shall give notice to Plaintiff within 2 days of the date of the hearing, including the following: Plaintiff must appear at the Further Case Management Conference (to be scheduled) in Department 12. * Counsel to appear for scheduling*

Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Balbinder Kaur v. General Motors, LLC Case No.: 24CV434201

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES & COSTS Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) following settlement of this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant opposes the motion, primarily arguing that the motion is untimely and that the fees requested are excessive and based on templated work.

I. Timeliness Defendant contends the motion is untimely under Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 644. Defendant argues that the 180 day period to file and serve the motion began 45 days after the May 15, 2025 settlement. Defendant relies on

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Nahal Iravani-Sani Judge Nahal Iravani-Sani dossier Other Motion for Attorney Fees in SANTACLARA All SANTACLARA County rulings Other Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty cases Other granted rulings in SANTACLARA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

) in support of its position that settlements serveas judgments. The court is not persuaded that this motion violates statutory deadlines. Hatlevig tied the 180 day deadline to the actual entry of dismissal. Because no dismissal has been entered in this case and the matter remains pending on the docket, the 180 period has not begun to run. (See

II. Reasonableness of Fees Civil Code section 1794(d) mandates an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing buyer. In determining a reasonable fee, courts apply the lodestar method, calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.

Plaintiff seeks $28,161.50 in attorney’s fees based on 51.6 hours of work, plus an additional 6.0 hours for reviewing Defendant’s opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing on this motion. Plaintiff also seeks $1,487.33 in costs. Plaintiff requests hourly rates of $695 for partner-level work performed by attorney David Barry, $525 for associate-level work performed by attorney Debora Rabieian, and $450 for attorney Brian Kim. In the June 16, 2026 reply brief, Plaintiff voluntarily reduced the total fees from the original $32,609.50 in attorney’s fees based on 64 total hours with 12.4 hours of anticipated time. Plaintiff concedes that the anticipatory time he billed for the motion exceeded the time spent. Plaintiff withdraws 6.4 hours at Mr. Barry’s hourly rate of $695 for a total amount of $4,448.00 from his Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

Mr. Barry declares he has approximately 23 years of legal experience, with nearly 20 years concentrating in consumer protection and lemon law litigation. He notes that courts have previously approved hourly rates of $675 (2024-2025) for his work across multiple California counties. Plaintiff contends the requested $695 rate is reasonable because of rates awarded in the same market to attorneys with comparable experience, as well as the survey of billing rates.

Defendant argues the rates and hours are inflated, the case involved no novel or unique issues, and the matter resolved within approximately 14 months of filing. Defendant argues the court should adjust rates to $595 for Mr. Barry, $350 for mid-level associates, and $300 for juniors, based on Santa Clara rates.

Having reviewed the moving papers, opposition, reply, declarations, and billing records submitted, the Court finds that the number of hours expended is generally reasonable in this routine Song-Beverly repurchase claim that resolved after approximately 14 months. The records are sufficiently detailed, and the Court does not find pervasive duplication or improper billing practices warranting a broad reduction in hours. The Court acknowledges that reductions by Plaintiff’s counsel have already been made.

With respect to hourly rates, the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $695 for partnerlevel work exceeds the prevailing market rate in Santa Clara County for comparable consumer warranty litigation. While the Court recognizes Mr. Barry’s experience in Song-Beverly matters, the Court finds $550 per hour to be a reasonable rate for partner-level work and $350 per hour to be a reasonable rate for associate-level work. These rates more closely reflect the prevailing market rates for comparable services in this community. Accordingly, the lodestar shall be recalculated.

With respect to costs, Plaintiff seeks recovery of $1,487.33, but the memorandum of costs and supporting documentation currently submitted are insufficient to permit the Court to verify the amounts requested, including estimated court reporter fees and undocumented e-filing fees. Plaintiff shall resubmit documentation supporting the claimed costs, including receipts or other appropriate proof, with the proposed order.

Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1. The Court sets the reasonable hourly rates at $550 for partner-level work, and $350 for associate-level work.

2. The Court will apply a reasonable reduction to the hours claimed, including the reduction of anticipated time to a maximum of 4.0 hours.

3. Plaintiff shall submit documentation supporting the claimed costs with the proposed order.

If no party contests this tentative ruling, the compensable time shall be reduced by one hour. The Court will adopt the foregoing rates and reductions and will award fees and costs in the recalculated amount.

Plaintiff shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling, including the recalculated fee award and supporting documentation for costs, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.