Braga vs. FCA US LLC

6 Braga vs. FCA TENTATIVE RULING: US LLC For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Kevin and Alma Braga’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in part.

Objections

In conjunction with the Opposition, Defendant filed objections to the Declaration of Chandy that was filed in support of the Motion. The objections are overruled.

In conjunction with the Reply, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Declaration of Cronin filed in support of the Opposition. The objections are overruled.

Merits

If a plaintiff prevails in a Song-Beverly action, they “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, subd. (d).)

There is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiffs prevailed and are entitled to fees and costs/expenses. However, Defendant disputes the nature and amount of fees, in addition to the claimed costs.

Attorney’s Fees

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 (Ketchum).) 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 p. 1131-1132.)v

“The amount of attorney fees awarded pursuant to the lodestar adjustment method may be increased or decreased. Such an adjustment is commonly referred to as a ‘fee enhancement’ or ‘multiplier.’ [Citation.]” (Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 247.) The lodestar may be adjusted based on factors which include (1) the complexity of the case, (2) the attorney’s skills, (3) the results achieved; (4) whether the case was taken on a contingency. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132-1134; (Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th 240 at p. 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, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132.) “In exercising its discretion to award a multiplier for contingent risk, the trial court ‘should consider whether, and to what extent, the attorney and client have been able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment, e.g., because the client has agreed to pay some portion of the lodestar amount regardless of outcome.’ [Citation.]

It should also consider the extent to which taking the case on a contingent fee basis has precluded the attorney from taking other fee-generating work. [Citation.]” (Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1188.) The trial court is neither foreclosed from, nor required to, award a multiplier. [Citations.]” (Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 247.)

“The prevailing party and fee applicant bears ‘the burden of showing that the fees incurred were ... “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,” and were “reasonable in amount.” ’ [Citations.]... [I]f the prevailing party fails to meet this burden, and the court finds the time expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances, ‘then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.’ [Citation.]” (Mikhaeilpoor, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 247; see Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1186 [It is not enough merely to state that counsel expended a certain number of hours in representing the client; fees motion must affirmatively demonstrate that the hours spent were reasonable and necessary].)

“‘[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, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 246-247.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court... [Citation.]” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132.)

“[A] court reasonably could [] reduce[] rates based on its finding that the matter was not complex; that it did not go to trial; that the name partners were doing work that could have been done by lowerbilling attorneys; and that all the attorneys were doing work that could have been done by paralegals.” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41.)

Hourly Rate of Compensation

Attached to the motion is the Declaration of Dhara Chandy, with Ex. 1 showing the billing for this action. Counsel billed over the course of five months with a total hours billed of 8.4 hours, totaling $4,787.50.

Below is the breakdown of timekeepers, hourly rates and hours billed:

Classification Rate Hours Total Former partner Tionna $650 1.5 $975 Carvalho and associate attorney Angel Baker Associate attorney $435 0.8 $348 Dhara Chandy Associate attorney $395 0.5 $197.50 Breana Rucker Law Clerk Juliessa $370 1.0 $370 Salgueiro Other law clerks $195 4.6 $897 8.4 $2,787.5

As for attorney rates, inclusive of partner and associates, the court finds the hourly rates to be unreasonably excessive for the type of work performed on a routine, non-complex, boilerplate lemon law case. (See Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 250 (reduction of rates is proper when trial attorney spent time on tasks that “should not have required anything more than [a] slight factual modification to [an] existing boilerplate.”)) Looking at the billing, Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared and filed a Complaint; Defendant reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel with a settlement offer; Plaintiffs’ counsel then corresponded with their clients; prepared a notice of settlement, joint stip. re Code of Civ. Proc. 664.6, a motion for attorneys’ fees, and a declaration re OSC re: dismissal. That’s it.

Based on the straightforward issues raised in this case, that no law and motion matters arose, no discovery was performed, and that most tasks were routine and/or required a slight modification from existing form complaint and attorneys fee motion, the reasonable hourly blended rate of $400 per hour is more than appropriate. For law clerks, an hourly rate of $150 per hour is appropriate.

Thus, using the adjusted blended rates of $400 and $150 per hour rates the total cost for all the hours billed is $1,960:

Classification Rate Hours Total Attorney $400 2.8 $1,120 Law Clerks $150 5.6 $840 8.4 $1,960

Based upon the above review of the billing in this matter, a multiplier is unwarranted.

Amount of time spent

When a party challenges the reasonableness of the number of hours billed, it has the burden “to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence.” (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564). “General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Ibid.) Defendant challenges a total of 0.9 hours. (See Ex. 1.) Specifically, Defendant challenges the following entries and contend they should be reduced:

Date Description Time Suggested Reason Billed Time 10/2/25 Review D's 0.5 0.0 Excessive, offer, chron, overstaffing, and file; draft unnecessary correspondence to client re [redacted] 10/3/25 Review 0.5 0.2 Excessive, correspondence overstaffing, from client re; unnecessary [redacted] review and sign D's 998 offer 11/15/25 Processed and 0.2 0.1 Vague; verified Excessive damages Unlicensed check/wire and law clerk analyzed compliance with settlement agreement 1.2 0.3

Here, the court will permit the full amount of time billed. Defendant has not sufficiently challenged these billing entries and the time billed is not unreasonable.

Thus, the court will order that Plaintiffs’ counsel recover all 8.4 hours claimed.

Lastly, Plaintiffs’ counsel contends they anticipate another $2,000 to be billed in this matter relating to reviewing the opposition, drafting a reply and to attend the hearing. However, these fees are not properly supported as there is no explanation of which attorney/law clerk is expected to perform these tasks nor is there an hourly rate attached.

Accordingly, the court will permit attorney’s fees of:

Classification Rate Hours Total Attorney $400 2.8 $1,120 Law Clerks $150 5.6 $840 8.4 $1,960

Costs

Prejudgment costs must be claimed and contested in accordance with the rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1034(a).)

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to file a memorandum of costs. However, by the parties’ settlement, the parties agreed that costs could be recovered via motion.

Here, Plaintiff claims costs and expenses of $1,047.35. Defendant contends none of the costs are recoverable as they are unsupported by invoices. Alternatively, Defendant seeks to have costs reduced to $547.50 for filing the Complaint, service of process of the summons and complaint upon Defendant FCA, only, and filing 2 proofs of service. Defendant contends all other costs should be disallowed.

The court subtracts a total of $234.80 for: (1) service on Dealer and vague monthly “client portal fees,” and (2) Plaintiffs claim of $126.50 for eFiling fees paid to First Legal, which appears excessive as all other eFiling fees were $28.75. Thus, the difference of $97.75 is subtracted.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ recoverable costs are $812.55 ($1,047.35 - $234.80).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall recover attorney’s fees of $1,960; and costs of $812.55.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

7 California Fair TENTATIVE RULING: Plan Association vs. Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel of Record Maxpro LLC Farzad Seyfnia moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Cross- Defendant EGL Motor, Inc. The motion is GRANTED. The order relieving counsel will be effective upon the filing of a proof of service of the executed order upon all parties.

In Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, the court explained that: “A corporation is not a natural person. It is an artificial entity created by law and as such it can neither practice law nor appear or act in person. Out of court it must act in its affairs through its agents and representatives and in matters in court it can act only through licensed attorneys. A corporation cannot appear in court by an officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona. (Citations omitted.)” (Id. at 898; see also Iannaccone v. Law (2nd Cir. 1998) 142 F.3d 553, 559 (holding that administrator of estate may not appear pro se on behalf of estate).)

Nevertheless, the ban on corporate self-representation does not prevent a court from granting a motion to withdraw as attorney of record even if it leaves the corporation without representation. (Ferruzzo v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504 [“An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending the rule against corporate self-representation”].) “Such an order puts pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel or risk forfeiting important