| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion to Tax Costs; Motion for Attorneys' Fees
(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) May 18, 2026 LASC - Tentative Rulings Main Content --> Online Services Tentative Rulings Text-to-Speech Play Reset DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi Calabasas? Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED except it is GRANTED as to Items 9 and 16 so that the total amount of $752.94 is taxed.
Introduction
Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi Calabasas (collectively, Defendants) moved to tax Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s (collectively, Plaintiffs) Memorandum of Costs (Cost Memo) filed by Attorney Richard Wirtz of Wirtz Law APC. The Cost Memo filed by Attorney Norman Taylor of Norman Taylor & Associates is not at issue. Defendants requested that the Cost Memo be stricken in its entirety or taxed in the total amount of $899.74 from Item nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, and 16.
Discussion
As to Item 1? Filing Fees, Defendants asserted that the $60.00 filing fee is unsubstantiated as to which motion was filed. However, as submitted by both parties, a Motion for Attorneys? Fees was to be and/or was filed on February 26, 2026. The Court record reflects the motion being filed. The arguments against Item 1 are unpersuasive since the filing fee has been substantiated by the filing of the Attorneys? Fees motion. The motion to tax costs as to Item 1 is DENIED.
As to Item 4? Deposition Costs, Defendants assert that the $2,481.15 in costs were not substantiated. However, with the Opposition, Plaintiffs submitted the receipts for the deposition costs. The verified Cost Memo is sufficient to establish the moving party’s initial burden on costs. (Hadley v. Repel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Once the opposing party disputes the alleged costs, the burden returns to the moving party to submit supportive documents. (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1263.) With Defendants’ dispute over the cost items, Plaintiffs were to submit supportive documentation for the cost items.
Extracted by Gemini Flash 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
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
Plaintiff sufficiently submitted the invoices to support the cost demands. The motion to tax costs as to Item 4 is DENIED.
As to Item 5? Service of Process costs of $490.00, Defendants again asserted that the cost item is unsubstantiated. Plaintiffs submitted the invoices for the service of process of the deposition subpoenas. The motion is not persuasive as to Item 5. The motion to tax Item 5 is DENIED.
Item 9 of the Cost Memo sought court-ordered transcripts costs of $625.00. Defendants asserted that no supportive documents were submitted either with the Cost Memo or Plaintiffs? Opposition. However, Plaintiffs assert that the cost is an anticipated cost for a court reporter to attend the May 18, 2026, hearing on the motion for attorneys’ fees. However, the anticipated cost for the court reporter at a future hearing is not proper as a cost item, specifically because the court does not anticipate ordering transcripts of the attorneys’ fees hearing. It is not the Court’s procedure to order transcripts from a fee motion. Plaintiffs’ request for anticipated court ordered transcripts is unpersuasive. The motion is persuasive as to Item 9. The motion to tax Item 9 ($625.00) is GRANTED.
Defendants argued that the costs in Item 14 - electronic filing or service costs of $771.81 were not substantiated. The invoices were not required to be submitted with the Cost Memo. However, with Defendants’ dispute of the cost item, Plaintiffs are required to submit the invoices for the cost, which Plaintiffs’ have done. The arguments in the motion are not persuasive. The motion to tax Item 14 is DENIED.
Item 16 “other’ costs of $127.94 included $120 for a courtesy copy of the attorneys’ fees motion delivered to the Court, $6.20 to download a minute order, and $1.74 for research on Westlaw. However, none of these costs are statutorily approved costs and the Court does not find these costs to be reasonably necessary in the litigation of this action. The Court notes that courtesy copies of motions are not required or requested in Department T. Defendants’ arguments are persuasive. The motion to tax Item 16 ($127.94) is GRANTED.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s Motion for Attorneys? Fees is GRANTED at a reduced and total amount of $26,538.00. Norman Taylor & Associates is awarded $12,978.00. Wirtz Law APC is awarded $13,560.00. Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
Introduction
Plaintiffs Satveer Singh Ark and Sukhninder Kaur Ark (collectively, Plaintiffs) moved for attorneys’ fees from Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Defendant). Plaintiffs requested fees totaling $75,108.75, which included attorneys’ fees of $50,072.50 plus a 1.5 multiplier of $25,036.25. In the motion, pg. 9:1, Plaintiff cited to? Robles v. Employment Dev. Dept (2019) 38 Cal.5th 191, 205?. The citation does not exist. The court will set an OSC re sanctions against plaintiff's counsel for citing a non-existing case.
Discussion
Plaintiffs requested attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party under Civil Code, section 1794(d). As submitted by both parties, Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties. The Court finds Plaintiffs to be the prevailing party in this action. The remaining issue is to determine the amount to be awarded for fees. Statutory attorney fees are ordinarily determined by the court pursuant to the “lodestar’ or “touchstone’ method. However, the Court’s discretion is limited in fee awards under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA). The statute takes a different approach from customary statutory or contractual provisions. The statute requires an “initial determination of the actual time expended; and then to ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended and the monetary charge being made for the time expended are reasonable. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, factors such as the complexity of the case and procedural demands, the skill exhibited and the results achieved. If the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended is not reasonable under all the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.”
In the situation of a contingency fee arrangement, the court in Nightingale stated, “for purposes of section 1794, subdivision (d), a prevailing buyer represented by counsel is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees for time reasonably expended by his or her attorney.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817-818 (citing to Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104-105, fn. 6.) In making a lodestar calculation of proper hourly rates to apply, “the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009), the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied (Syers Properties [III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691,] at p. 700) . . . and affidavits [from plaintiffs’ attorneys and] from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases. (Heritage, at p. 1009.)? (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.) Plaintiffs were represented by two firms: Norman Taylor & Associates (NTA) and Wirtz Law (WL).
The total amount requested in fees is $50,072.50. NTA expended a total of 46.6 hours and WL expended a total of 56.4 hours. The total hours expended on this case was 103 hours. Norman Taylor charged $645.00 per hour and has 39+ years of experience. (Norman Taylor Decl. par. 6-10, 12.) The hourly rates charged by each of the four WL attorneys and the years of experience of each WL attorney and fees could have been incurred by Plaintiffs are: (1) Attorney Robert Wirtz (33+ year attorney; $750/hour); (2) Attorney Amy Rotman (14 year attorney; $600/hour); (3) Jessica Underwood (11 year attorney$600/hour); and (4) Susanna Gonzales-McCaulley (2 year attorney; $450/hour). (Richard Wirtz Decl. pars. 13, 16-20, and 29.)
As to NTA paralegals, Plaintiffs provided that the hourly rates charged were: (1) Nick McNaughton (30 years; $300/hour), (2) Lusine Musat (15 years; $300/hour), and (3) Lori Richardson (24 years; $300/hour). (Taylor Decl. par. 13.) As to WL paralegals, Plaintiffs provided that the hourly rates charged were: (1) Rebecca Evans (11 years; $300/hour), (2) Citlali Sanchez (4 years; $250/hour), and (3) Katelynn Cespedes (2 years; $250/hour). (Richard Wirtz Decl. pars. 21-23.) The Court finds that the hourly rates of Counsels and paralegals to be reasonable based upon high level of education, knowledge, expertise, and experience.
However, with the high level of education, knowledge, expertise, and experience of all attorneys/paralegals working on this action, the Court finds that the amount of time expended on the litigation of 103 total hours is unreasonable. The knowledge gained by the many years served as lawyers and paralegals should be reflected in the time expended in accomplishing the legal tasks. Counsels and paralegals should be able expend time on performing legal tasks expeditiously due to their extensive experience. The Court further noted that the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and a motion to tax costs, concurrently being heard, are the only two law and motion matters being resolved by the Court. The parties further filed many motions in limine that were not complicated and further were not resolved by the Court. This action was also filed on July 24, 2024, which shows that it only took a little over a year to resolve the action. Because of the above facts, the Court does not find that a total of 103 hours by two law firms is a reasonable amount of time to have expended on this action. With a reduction in the amount of time for the litigation, the Court finds that a reasonable amount in attorneys’ fees is $26,538.00.
Plaintiffs requested a 1.5 multiplier of $25,036.25. In determining to augment the fees by a multiplier the Court takes into consideration “various relevant factors into account, including (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; and (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, based on the uncertainty of prevailing on the merits and of establishing eligibility for the award.” (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 819; Serrano v. Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) Plaintiffs have the burden of proof to show that the enhancement is primarily to compensate counsel at a rate reflecting the risk of nonpayment in contingency cases as a class. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 (Ketchum).) The aim is to compensate attorneys at fair market value as an inducement to accept these cases. (Id.) “A trial court should award a multiplier for exceptional representation only when the quality of representation far exceeds the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation. Otherwise, the fee award will result in unfair double counting and be unreasonable. Nor should a fee enhancement be imposed for the purpose of punishing the losing party.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1139.) The Court further has the discretion to adjust the lodestar downward where appropriate. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132, Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 64.)
The representation of Plaintiffs did not exceed the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rates reviewed above because the action did not involve any novel and difficult issues of law. The legal and factual issues presented were straightforward. Counsels’ declarations also did not present any facts to show that they were precluded from taking on other employment. The only element established by Plaintiffs, relevant to multipliers, is that Counsels took the case on a contingency basis. However, showing only one of three factors is insufficient to award a multiplier. Because of these facts, the Court is not persuaded that a fee enhancement is awardable in this case. Plaintiffs’ request for a fee enhancement is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs’ request for a 1.5 multiplier is DENIED.
The motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED at the reduced amount of $26,538.00. NTA is awarded $12,978.00. Wirtz is awarded $13,560.00. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.
Case Number: 25VECV00229 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV00229 Neamati v Elite Property Management E x parte application to continue trial set in August. This case was filed Jan. 2025. Defendant Elite Property appeared in the case in June 2025. Car Park appeared May 2026. Kadima appeared May 2026. Good cause is shown. The court grants the application to continue and will set Trial and FSC in April 2027. Discovery cutoffs will apply per the new trial date and will remain open. NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES.
Case Number: 25VECV01167 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV01167 DIAZ V GM GM?s motion for terminating sanctions: Failure to comply with the court’s 2/26/2026 order compelling plaintiff to appear for deposition on 3/12/2026 (or any other