Everett John Riley, et al. v. General Motors LLC

Everett John Riley, et al. v. General Motors LLC, 25CVP-0097

Hearing: Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Date: July 7, 2026

On March 20, 2025, Everett Riley and Templeton Electric, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed this lemon law action against General Motors LLC (GM). The dispute concerns Plaintiffs purchase of a 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 (the Subject Vehicle). The complaint includes causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act). (Civ. Code, § 1790, et seq.)

On or about September 16, 2025, the case settled via written settlement agreement. (Daghighian Dec., ¶ 43.) The settlement agreement permits Plaintiffs to seek an award of reasonably incurred fees and costs, as the prevailing parties, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d). (Ibid.) Plaintiffs now move for an order awarding those fees and costs to their attorneys, California Consumer Attorneys, P.C. (CCA).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The prevailing buyer in an action brought under the Act is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) “Trial judges are entrusted with this discretionary determination because they are in the best position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in their courts.” [internal quotation marks omitted.] (McKenzie v. Ford Motor Company (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 695, 703-704.)

“[T]he trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774 [trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable fee and is governed by equitable principles.])

“[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 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. [Citation.]” (PLCM Group v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The factors to be considered include the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.” (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774, citing PLCM Group v. Drexler, at p. 1096.)

The party seeking fees has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award of fees and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784; see Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817-818 [the party seeking fees as the

prevailing party has “the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount”].)

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request a total award of $24,447.67, consisting of the following: $863.92 in costs and $23,583.75 in fees ($15,722.50, plus a multiplier of 0.5 [$7,861.25]). In support of the motion, Plaintiffs submitted a detailed invoice from its attorneys, California Consumer Attorneys (CCA), setting forth the hours spent on this action. (Daghighian Dec., ¶ 14, Ex. A.)

GM does not object to the costs requested but does object to the requested attorneys’ fees as follows: (1) excessive attorney billing rates are unsupported by evidence; (2) duplicate billing entries should be stricken and unreasonable billing entries should be reduced or stricken; and (3) fees to prepare this motion and estimated fees not yet incurred should be stricken.

A. Reasonableness of Fees

1. Reasonableness of Hourly Rate

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests hourly rates for the attorneys who worked on this case: (1) Sepehr Daghighian (rate of $625/hr); (2) Michael H. Rosenstein (rate of $700/hr); (3) Brian T. Shippen-Murray (rate of $550/hr); (4) James P. Martinez (rate of $400/hr); (5) Michael William Oppenheim (rate of $350/hr); (6) Alastair Frederick Hamblin (rate of $550/hr); and (7) Miguel A. Ortiz (rate of $525/hr). (See Daghighian Dec., ¶¶ 7-13.) Mr. Daghighian provides an overview of the experience of each attorney that worked on the matter. (Id., ¶¶ 7-13.)

GM argues that a reduction in the fees requested is warranted because rather than presenting evidence of rates actually charged in a comparable non contingent matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel compares its hourly rates to other contingency-fee attorneys’ purported “hourly rates” which do not reflect the prevailing market rates. “The motion thus provides no competent evidence to support CCA Attorneys’ hourly rates, and no evidence whatsoever to show what a client being billed at a market rate would pay for prosecuting an action of this nature.” (Opp., p. 5, ll. 1-3.)

A plaintiff may retain an attorney from a city with billable rates that exceed the usual rate for legal service in the community where they have made a good faith but unsuccessful effort to find local counsel. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397-399 [higher out of town rate proper for lodestar calculation where party submitted declaration that he tried to find local counsel and was wholly unsuccessful.])

Plaintiffs provide no evidence that an attorney with similar experience or capabilities to the CCA attorneys could not be found or retained locally. Nor is the Court persuaded by CCA’s evidence supporting its requested hourly rates, particularly where CCA offers no

evidence that the proposed rates reflect the reasonable prevailing hourly rate in the County of San Luis Obispo. Thus, the Court finds that there is no basis for applying hourly rates higher than those usually charged within this community. The Court shall set the hourly rates for CCA attorneys, as noted below, based on the Court’s experience and knowledge of the legal market in the County of San Luis Obispo:

Sepehr Daghighian rate of $425/hr Michael H. Rosenstein rate of $425/hr Brian T. Shippen-Murray rate of $400/hr James P. Martinez rate of $350/hr Michael William Oppenheim rate of $300/hr Alastair Frederick Hamblin rate of $400/hr Miguel A. Ortiz rate of $425/hr

2. Multiplier

GM next argues the Court should deny the requested 0.5 lodestar multiplier because “any lodestar multiplier AT ALL would be grossly improper due to the rudimentary nature of the case, which settled within 6 months and never had any depositions, propounded discovery outside AB1755, or vehicle inspection.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 13-15.)

“ ‘There is no hard-and-fast rule limiting factors that may justify an exercise of judicial discretion to increase or decrease a lodestar calculation.’ [Citation.] There are numerous such factors, and their evaluation is entrusted to a trial court’s sound discretion; any one of those factors may be responsible for enhancing or reducing the lodestar. [Citations.]” (Krumme v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 924, 947; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1243 [the trial court erred by applying a multiplier enhancement to compensate for out-of-town counsel’s higher rates, because no threshold showing was made that hiring local counsel was impracticable].)

The Court notes that there are a number of cases in this Court involving claims of violations of the Act and GM that involve similar facts, and similar pleadings; and that the law and motion issues across those matters frequently overlap. The claims here were neither novel nor difficult to establish. Accordingly, the circumstances of this case do not warrant a lodestar multiplier, and the Court declines to award one.

3. Billing Entries

“In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 563-564.)

a. Duplicative Entries

GM requests that time entries for duplicative efforts be stricken or reduced. GM provides

two examples.

Example 1

• 01/29/2025, Bill Oppenheim; Pre-lit Case Review of client’s documents; Telephone Conference with Client re: same and litigation plan, 1.50, $350.00, $525.00

• 08/08/2025, Bill Oppenheim; read case summary/vehicle history to prepare for initial client consultation; telephone call with client re discuss Song Beverly Act Remedies & Elements, Vehicle History, Vehicle’s Substantial Impairment, Clients Documents, Deposition Availability, 0.60, $350.00, $210.00

Example 2

• 06/30/2025, Bill Oppenheim: receive and catalogue Def.’s initial disclosures document production; Service Request Detail Reports; 91- 1929194, 91-, 9-, 9-, 9-, 9-, Repair Order Detail Reports, Vehicle History, CarFax, TSBs, Vehicle Invoice, Recalls, GM Global Warranty documents, GM Transaction Detail Reports, Sales Brochures, Owner’s Manual, GM Lemon Law Buyback Materials, Service Policies and Procedures Manuals, 2.50, $350.00, $875.00

• 07/31/2025, Miguel Ortiz; Review initial document production for compliance with AB1755. Draft correspondence to OC re document deficiencies. Update discovery chart. 1.80 $525.00; $945.00

• 09/11/2025, Bill Oppenheim: read and analyze Defendant’s document production; customer communications, warranty repair records; revise case summary/vehicle repair history, 1.70, $350.00, $595.00

(Opp., p. 7, ll. 7-20.)

Upon review of the billing entries and the parties’ briefs, the court does not find that the cited billing entries are duplicative. (See Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) Thus, the court declines to reduce the award of attorney’s fees for duplicate activity.

b. Unreasonable Billing Entries

GM next asks this Court to reduce the amount of fees or time billed for several categories of unreasonable time entries, contending that Lemon Law practitioners routinely rely on boilerplate templates for pleadings and discovery and that, aside from inserting case specific facts and updating the caption, CCA used only boilerplate materials here.

GM identifies specific billing entries it claims are improper, including tasks which it

alleges could have been performed by paralegals, and time billed by more senior attorneys for work that could have been handled by less experienced counsel. Plaintiff responds that GM “fails to provide any actual analysis as to how these entries are excessive other than a couple areas where certain portions of some of the entries are identified in bold type and a general suggestion that this work might be paralegal work, even though there is no such analysis as to specific entries.” (Reply, p. 6, ll. 7-10.) The Court agrees. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)

Upon review of the entries cited by GM, the Court finds no unnecessary tasks or overbilling; the time spent appears reasonable, and the Court declines to reduce the hours claimed.

c. Fees to Prepare Fee Motion and Estimated Fees

The Court likewise declines to reduce the time billed for preparing this motion. Fees for preparing and defending a fee motion are recoverable. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141; see Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 639.) The Court further finds the estimated time for the reply and hearing is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will not reduce the hours claimed.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion is granted in part. The Court awards $11,500 in attorneys’ fees, as reflected below, and expenses in the amount of $863.92, for a total fee award in the amount of $12,363.92. The Court declines to apply a lodestar multiplier.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARDED Attorney Hours Rate Total Sepehr Daghighian 14.1 $425 $5992.50 Alastair Hamblin 0.3 $400 $120.00 James P. Martinez 0.7 $350 $245.00 Brian T. Shippen-Murray 0.3 $400 $120.00 Michael William Oppenheim 11.5 $300 $3,450.00 Miguel A. Ortiz 1.8 $425 $765.00 Michael H. Rosenstein 1.9 $425 $807.50 TOTAL $11,500.00

ORDER (PROPOSED)

The motion is granted in part. The Court awards $11,500 in attorneys’ fees, and expenses in the amount of $863.92, for a total fee award in the amount of $12,363.92. The Court declines to apply a lodestar multiplier.

5