DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV137597·alameda·Civil·Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED IN PART

TRUITT, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Motion for Attorney Fees

Hearing date
Jul 23, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$20,807.53$19,343.01$1,464.52$16,343.01$3,000$800$880$625$770$275$302.50$500$7,950$4,262.50$12,212.50$13,677.02

Parties

PlaintiffBryan Eric Truitt
PlaintiffShirin May Towfiq
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

25CV137597: TRUITT, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Bryan Eric Truitt (Plaintiff) + CRS# 374281697751 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 07/20/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Bryan Eric Truitt, Shirin May Towfiq on 06/12/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiffs seek an award of $20,807.53 in fees and expenses, consisting of a lodestar of $19,343.01 and costs in the amount of $1,464.52.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party pursuant to the accepted Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer in this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action.

Lodestar Fees

Plaintiffs, as the prevailing parties, have the burden of showing the fees incurred were allowable, reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and reasonable in amount. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 34.) The primary method for establishing the amount of reasonable attorney fees is the lodestar method. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133.) The lodestar is produced by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel at a reasonable hourly rate. (Id.)

In evaluating the reasonableness of an attorney fee request, the trial court is to base the fee award upon actual time expended on the case, if such fees were reasonably incurred, both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247.) The court may find that the time expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances if plaintiffs do not meet their burden of proof; in that event, the court has the discretion to award fees in a lesser amount. (Id.)

Plaintiffs seek lodestar fees in the amount of $19,343.01, for which $16,343.01 is for work already performed, and $3,000 is based on anticipated fees for fee motion reply and hearing.

Defendant contends that the 31.4 hours billed by Plaintiffs for work already performed is excessive. The Court rejects that contention. However, the Court declines to award the additional $3,000 for hours the Plaintiffs anticipate spending on the fee motion and reply. The Court observes that Plaintiffs’ fee briefing in this case appears to be a nearly verbatim cut and paste from a template used in another case. (See Kay Decl., Exh. A.) Given this fact, the Court finds the hours billed for time on the motion appears sufficient to cover the time that would be reasonable required for the fee motion, reply, and any hearing.

In all other respects, the Court finds that the total time billed by Plaintiffs on this case – 31.4 hours-- appears fair and reasonable 25CV137597: TRUITT, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Bryan Eric Truitt (Plaintiff) + CRS# 374281697751 in Department 24 for a case of this type. The Court observes that Plaintiffs appropriately delegated significant work to a paralegal in this case.

Defendant also contends that the hourly rates are excessive. Plaintiffs seek compensation for a Partner (Cline) at $800 and $880 per hour, a Managing Litigation Counsel (Johnson) at $625 and $770 per hour, and a paralegal (Sasse) at $275 and $302.50 per hour. Based upon the Court’s own experience in Song Beverly cases in the Bay Area, the rates for Cline and Johnson are high, particularly for tasks that an hourly-paying client would expect to be delegated to lower-priced professionals, such as associates, paralegals, or administrative staff.

Because fee awards should mimic the market and hourly paying clients do not expect to pay a partner’s rate for ministerial or routine tasks, the Court applies a generous, blended rate of $500 for attorney work performed in this case. The Court also finds that $275 per hour is a fair and reasonable figure for paralegal work. Accordingly, the Court reduces the lodestar as follows:

15.9 hours of attorney time at $500 per hour = $7,950

15.5 hours at $275 per hour = $ 4,262.50

Given the nature of the work performed, and all the circumstances presented, the Court determines that $ 12,212.50 is a reasonable lodestar for the time that Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonably spent on this matter.

Costs

Plaintiffs submitted a declaration adequately supporting their request for $1,464.52 in costs. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant was required to file a motion to tax costs; no judgment has yet been entered and Plaintiffs’ only means for obtaining costs is through the instant motion. Defendant’s opposition brief was the appropriate mechanism to address any objection to the requested costs. Nonetheless, the Court rejects Defendant’s contention that filing fees are non-compensable “business overhead.” Filing fees are compensable costs. (CCP 1033.5(a)(1).)

The Court also rejects Defendant’s contention that jury fees are non-compensable. (CCP 1033.5(a)(1).) Plaintiffs were required to promptly pay jury fees in order to preserve their right to a jury trial. Finally, the Court exercises its discretion to award mediation costs, which were reasonably necessary to resolve this matter. Accordingly, the Court awards the full amount of costs requested.

Conclusion

The Court ORDERS Defendant General Motors LLC to pay fees and costs to Plaintiffs in the total amount of $ 13,677.02.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share