Motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED.
Respondent to give notice.
9 Vega vs. TENTATIVE RULING: General Motors LLC For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Angelica Vega’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The court awards Plaintiffs a total fees, costs, and expenses award of $6,336.26, consisting of $5,757.50 in attorney fees plus $578.76 in costs.
Standard on Motions for Attorney’s Fees
On a motion for attorney’s fees, the moving party has the burden of: (1) establishing entitlement to an award, and (2) documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020.)
The Song-Beverly Act provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) Courts use the lodestar adjustment method to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to award in Song-Beverly actions. (Reynolds v. Ford Motor Co. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1112.) “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) It is “based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved in the presentation of the case.’ [Citation.] [The California Supreme Court] expressly approved the use of prevailing hourly rates as a basis for the lodestar...
In referring to ‘reasonable’ compensation, [the Court] indicated that trial courts must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended; ‘padding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation. (Id. at 1131- 1132.)
When determining a reasonable attorneys’ fees award using the lodestar method, the court begins by deciding the reasonable hours the prevailing party’s attorney spent on the case and multiplies that number by the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (
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?”
work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The court may rely on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. (Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009; 569 E. County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 426, 437.)
The court then has the discretion to increase or decrease the lodestar figure by applying a positive or negative multiplier; “such an adjustment is commonly referred to as a ‘fee enhancement’ or ‘multiplier.’ [Citation.]” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 (“Mikhaeilpoor”).) The lodestar may be adjusted based on factors which include the novelty and difficulty of issues presented, complexity of the case, the attorney’s skills, the results achieved, and the extent to which taking the case on a contingent fee basis has precluded the attorney from taking other feegenerating work. (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132-1134; Mikhaeilpoor, 48 Cal.App.5th at 247.) “The purpose of [the] 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.” (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.)
The court is not required to impose a multiplier; the decision is discretionary. (Mikhaeilpoor, 48 Cal.App.5th at 247; Galbiso, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1089; Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1241.)
“‘[T]he lodestar method vests the trial court with the discretion to decide which of the hours expended by the attorneys were “reasonably spent” on the litigation’ [Citation] and to determine the hourly rates that should be used in the lodestar calculus. [Citation.]” (Mikhaeilpoor, 48 Cal.App.5th at 246-247.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court . . . . [Citation.]” (Ketchum, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.)
1. Entitlement to Fees
Here, it is undisputed Plaintiff is the prevailing party over Defendant GM and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
2. Lodestar Calculation
Plaintiff submits time records detailing the work performed, amount of time billed, date, and timekeeper. The records show 24.9 hours of attorney work totaling $11,318.00 in attorney’s fees. (Geoulla Decl. ¶ 39, Ex. 2.)
Timekeeper (bar Billing Rate Hours Billed admission) Attorney Geoulla (2022) $450 16.9 Attorney Youabian (2021) $495 6.9 Attorney Josephson $350 0.3 (2025) Legal Asst. Castellanos $125 0.1 Legal Asst. Alvarado $150 0.7
a. Reasonable Rates
“The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The court may rely on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. (Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009; 569 E. County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 426, 437.)
Plaintiff’s counsel billed at the following rates:
Timekeeper (bar admission) Billing Rec’d Rate Rate Attorney Geoulla (2022) $450 $350 Attorney Youabian (2021) $495 $350 Attorney Josephson (2025) $350 $250 Legal Asst. Castellanos $125 Legal Asst. Alvarado $150
The court finds that the rates charged appear on the higher side of the market for this type of litigation. Attorney Josephson has been practicing less than one year, and the most senior attorney Youabian less than five years. For this reason, the court reduces the reasonable rate of fees as follows:
Timekeeper (bar admission) Rate Attorney Geoulla (2022) $350 Attorney Youabian (2021) $350 Attorney Josephson (2025) $250 Legal Asst. Castellanos $125 Legal Asst. Alvarado $150
These reduced rates reflect the reasonable market rate for an attorney with similar experience for similar work.
b. Reasonable Hours
The parties exchanged initial disclosures, propounded no formal discovery beyond those disclosures and took no depositions. (Kay Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)
On 06/17/2025, the parties reached an agreement for GM to repurchase the vehicle for $42K plus fees and costs.
Defendant challenges several billing entries, including:
- Pre-engagement work: 2.5 hours billed ($1,237.50) before Plaintiff retained counsel. The court will reduce 1.5 hours billed by Attorney Youabian.
- Client intake and prelitigation: 1.6 hours billed by Attorney Youabian and 1.2 hours billed by Attorney Geoulla on initial intake and prelitigation tasks as excessive. The court will reduce 1.2 hours billed by Atty Geoulla.
- Complaint: 0.6 hrs billed by Atty Geoulla ($270) and 0.2 hrs ($99) billed by Youabian to draft the template Complaint as excessive. The court will reduce 0.2 hrs billed by Youabian and 0.2 hrs billed by Atty Geoulla.
- Initial disclosures: 0.6 hrs by Atty Geoulla to discuss initial disclosures and draft, 0.1 hrs ($49.50) by Youabian to review and sign the disclosures. The court will reduce 0.3 hrs billed by atty Geoulla.
- Reviewing GM’s initial disclosures: 1.2 hrs ($540) to review initial disclosures, the majority of information which counsel would already have reviewed, given the warranty was in Plaintiff’s possession. The court will reduce Atty Geoulla’s time by 0.6 hours.
- Client communications: Atty Geoulla billed 6.3 hours ($2835) and 1.0 hours $495) by Atty Youabian to communicate with Plaintiff. The court will reduce Atty Geoulla’s time by 3 hours.
- Administrative time: 0.5 hrs ($225) and 0.3 hr ($37.50). The
court will reduce 0.5 hrs of Atty Geoulla’s time.
- Fees motion: 2.2 hours ($1080) and 0.4 hrs ($198) to draft the fees motion. The court will reduce 0.5 hours of Atty Geoulla’s time.
In sum, the court has reduced 1.7 hrs of time billed by Attorney Youabian and 6.3 hours billed by Attorney Geoulla.
Timekeeper (bar Hours Billed Hours admission) Allowed by Court Attorney Geoulla (2022) 16.9 10.6 Attorney Youabian (2021) 6.9 5.2 Attorney Josephson 0.3 0.3 (2025) Legal Asst. Castellanos 0.1 0.1 Legal Asst. Alvarado 0.7 0.7 TOTAL 24.9 16.9
The court, therefore, awards Plaintiff $5,757.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees, for 16.9 hours of legal services. This amount and these hours appear reasonable for a simple lemon law matter resolved within five months of filing and without formal written discovery outside of initial disclosures.
3. Costs
Plaintiff timely filed its memorandum of costs prior to judgment was entered. (See Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1700(a)(1) [providing deadline to file and serve costs memorandum as the earlier of: 15 days after service of notice of entry of judgment, or 180 days after entry of judgment].)
Plaintiff seeks $578.76 in costs. Defendant seeks to tax $70.06 in costs.
The court having reviewed Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs finds that the $578.76 that Plaintiff requests is reasonable. Plaintiff shall be awarded $578.76 in costs.
Plaintiff to give notice.