Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Case No. CU23-00155
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Plaintiff JAIME ANDUJO moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs following settlement of this action brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “Act” or “lemon law”) against Defendant GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.
Timeliness of Fee Motion. A prevailing buyer under the lemon law shall be allowed to recover attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the prosecution of his action. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702 requires a motion for attorneys’ fees to be filed and served within the time for filing a notice of appeal, which is the sooner of 180 days from entry of judgment or 60 days from service of notice of entry of judgment. If a case ends in a dismissal then the 180-day deadline controls and begins to run from after entry of the order of dismissal. (Catlin Ins. Co., Inc. v. Danko Meredith Law Firm, Inc. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 764, 781.)
This case was dismissed on February 3, 2026. Plaintiffs’ motion, filed and served by February 23, 2026, is timely.
Analysis of Fee Award. When awarding required fees to a lemon law plaintiff a court must make an initial determination of the actual time expended and then ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended and the charge for the time are reasonable. (Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 507 (Hanna).) These circumstances include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the case, procedural demands, skill exhibited, and results achieved. (Ibid.)
If the time expended or the charge for that time are not reasonable under all the circumstances the court must take this into account and award a lesser amount of fees. (Ibid.) The prevailing buyer has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, reasonably necessary, and reasonable in amount. (Ibid.) A reasonable hourly rate is one that fits with prevailing rates for like work in the same area. (
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?”
Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 35.) This is because a trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in the trial court. (Goglin v. BMW of North
America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 462, 470.) The court may also apply a multiplier to increase or decrease the initial “hours times rate” lodestar figure depending on the novelty or difficulty of questions the case presented, the skill displayed in presenting the case, the extent to which the case precluded other employment for the attorneys, and the contingent nature of the fee award. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) However, the trial court may not tie the fee award to the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery in an action under the Act. (Hanna at p. 510.)
A prevailing buyer may also recover his costs. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)
Defendant GM has not contested the hourly billing rates.
The Court finds that the time spent on the following tasks are unreasonable and warrant striking. The Court finds that the tasks at issue are not new or complex.
1. Prepared Plaintiff’s Responses to GM’s Discovery Requests – July 10, 11, 2023: The Court strikes 1.4 hours at $525 per hour.
2. Motion to Compel Deposition – August 24, 25; October 26; November 1, 7, 8, 2023. The Court strikes 6 hours at $525 per hour.
3. Motions to Compel Further Responses to FROGS, RFPs and SROGs – August 25, 28, 2023; September 22, 26, 2023; November 27, 28, 2023, December 4, 5, 2023. The Court strikes 7.6 hours at $525 per hour.
4. Motion to Exclude Expert and Ex Parte Application in Connection Therewith – March 18, 24, 26, 2025: The Court strikes 4.7 hours at $525 per hour.
5. Drafting Trial Documents – March 28, April 1, 2025; August 21, 2025: The Court strikes 3.4 hours at $525 per hour.
6. Attorney’s Fee motion and anticipated time: The Court strikes 12.6 hours at $525 per hour.
In total, the Court strikes 35.7 hours at $525 per hour for a reduction of $18,742.50.
The court finds Plaintiff’s claimed costs reasonable, with one exception: Plaintiff claims $550 for a court reporter for an unnamed purpose.
The court finds that this was a straightforward and common action under the Act that does not warrant application of a multiplier.
Conclusion. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as follows:
Attorneys fees in the amount of $39,345.50.
Plaintiff is awarded $4,508.46 in costs.
AMMAAR MOTORS, INC. vs. ZULFIGAR ALI SHIRAZE; ET AL.