Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d)
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 02, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 22***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sony S. Sandhu in Department 24: CV-24-002775 - MEDINA, LIBERTAD vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1794(d) - GRANTED, in part, denied in part, as follows:
Defendant is admonished for the final time regarding violations of Rules 3.113 and 2.108 of California Rules of Court. Further violations will result in the imposition of sanctions.
Plaintiff is the prevailing party pursuant to Defendant's CCP Sec. 998 offer, which provided that Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 1794(d) would be determined by noticed motion. Entitlement is therefore not disputed. The issue is the reasonable amount to be awarded.
Plaintiff seeks attorney fees of $43,651.50, a 0.10 multiplier of $4,365.15, and costs of $2,481.12, for a total request of $50,497.77. Under Civil Code Sec. 1794(d), the prevailing buyer may recover attorney fees, costs, and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of the action. The Court must determine whether the hours claimed were actually and reasonably incurred and whether the amount charged is reasonable under all of the circumstances (Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d); Reck v.
FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5 th 682; Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant seeks substantial reductions based on template use, duplication, pre-litigation work, fraud-related work, administrative tasks, fee motion work, and costs. The Court does not adopt Defendant's requested reduction in full. However, certain targeted reductions are warranted.
First, Defendant requests elimination of all time allegedly related to Plaintiff's fraud claim. The Court declines to make such a reduction. Plaintiff's Song-Beverly, fraud, and CLRA claims arise from the same alleged vehicle defects, warranty repair history, Defendant's knowledge, and Defendant's alleged failure to repurchase or replace the vehicle. The claims are sufficiently intertwined such that apportionment is not warranted.
Second, Defendant's objections concerning template use have partial merit. The Court recognizes that experienced Song-Beverly counsel may permissibly use templates to litigate recurring issues efficiently. However, template use also supports a finding that certain claimed hours were excessive where the work required limited customization.
The following reductions are made: Review of GM's discovery requests: $220.00 Plaintiff's responses to GM's discovery requests: $385.00
Plaintiff's discovery requests: $385.00 Meet-and-confer correspondence: $1,298.00 Customer service representative deposition notice: $287.50 Review of GM's discovery responses: $440.00 Motion to compel PMK deposition: $935.00 Review of motions in limine: $275.00 Fee motion work: $3,860.00 Administrative/file-management tasks: $1,222.00 Duplicate review of document production: $550.00 The total fee reduction is $9,857.50.
Accordingly, the requested lodestar of $43,651.50 is reduced by $9,857.50, for an adjusted attorney fee award of $33,794.00. The request for a multiplier is denied. Although Plaintiff obtained a favorable result and counsel accepted the matter on a contingent basis, this case did not involve unusually novel or complex issues, did not proceed to trial, and the lodestar adequately compensates counsel for the work reasonably performed.
As to costs, Plaintiff seeks $2,481.12. Defendant's objections are granted in part. The Court disallows the $550.00 anticipated court reporter fee for the fee motion hearing. The remaining costs are allowed. Allowed costs are therefore $1,931.12
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is therefore GRANTED IN PART as follows: Attorney Fees: $33,794.00 Costs: $1,931.12 Total Award: $35,725.12
The request for a multiplier is denied. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order within five (5) court days of this ruling.
CV-24-008369 - CHRISTIANSEN, JOSEPH vs SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS LLC - Defendant Save Mart Supermarket, LLC's Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Deposition of Person Most Qualified from Save Mart Supermarkets LLC and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
The Court notes an important point of agreement between the parties, i.e. the collaboration on Bel-Aire West Notices, as well as Defendant's indication to Plaintiffs that it is in possession of the entire class list data. The Court also notes prior discussions between Defendants and prior Class Counsel about any overlapping discovery herein. The Court acknowledge the parties meet and confer efforts but is confident that Court that given the foregoing, further meet and confer between the parties will go a long way towards resolving the present discovery dispute.
Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to further meet and confer ordered to engage in further meet and confer "either in person, by telephone or by videoconference" to address and or narrow down the issues in dispute, bearing in mind that parties have a broad right to discovery of relevant information and that discovery is supposed to be self-executing. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec.Sec. 2016.040; 2017.010).
Parties are also reminded that civil discovery is intended to be self-executing, and that argument is not the same as informal negotiation. Furthermore, a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).
Additionally, good faith meet and confer communication should involve serious efforts at informal negotiation and resolution, including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position