Motion to Consolidate; Motion to Continue Trial
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.350, Defendant Norma Iniguez’s Motion to Consolidate the following two cases is GRANTED:
1. Roberto Barajas v. Norma Iniguez, OCSC Case No. 30- 2024-01422858, filed on 08/29/2024.
2. Norma Iniguez v. Roberto Barajas, OCSC Case No. 30- 2025-01474457 filed on 04/10/2025.
The court finds that all procedural requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 are met. Moreover, the court finds that the actions involve common questions of law and fact such that the interests of the parties and the court would be best served by consolidating the cases. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048.)
Moreover, pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.13321, the Court finds that the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 weigh in favor of continuing trial and therefore the request to continue the 10/12/2026 trial date is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.) Trial is CONTINUED to April 12, 2027 at 9 a.m.
Moving party to give notice. 105 Peltekci vs. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 23-01357182 Plaintiffs JOHN PELTEKCI and CHRIS PELTEKCI move for an award of attorney fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $44,620.00. Plaintiffs also request a modest “lodestar” multiplier/enhancement of 1.5x, in the amount of $22,310.00, for a total of $66,930.00 in attorney fees. The total amount requested by this motion is $66,930.00. Moving party also requests costs in the amount of $3,025.75.
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?”
The plain wording of section 1794, subdivision (d) requires the trial court to base the prevailing buyer’s attorney fee award upon actual time expended on the case, as long as such fees are reasonably incurred—both from the standpoint of time spent and the amount charged. (Hanna v. Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 506.)
Civil Code section 1794 requires the trial court to make 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 are not reasonable under all the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount. A prevailing buyer has the
burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount. (Hanna, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 507)
In affirming, the Court of Appeal indicated in Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 32 as modified (Oct. 11, 2019):
“In making its calculation [of a reasonable hourly rate], 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 [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (569 East, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 437, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 304; see Mountjoy, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 272, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 495 [“ ‘ “a reasonable hourly rate is the product of a multiplicity of factors .... [including] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ”].)”
[Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41, as modified (Oct. 11, 2019)]
Also, in Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240 the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Court’s reduction of attorney’s rate to $350 an hour where there were multiple time keepers at differing rates. This case appears to give this Court authority to reduce the fees to a reasonable hourly rate.
Relevant History
On or about February 11, 2018, Plaintiffs leased a new 2018 Land Rover HSE, VIN: SALGS2SVXJA383799 from Jaguar Land Rover Newport Beach in Newport Beach, California. The Vehicle’s odometer at lease read 36 miles. The total lease payments over the 39-month lease, including Plaintiffs’ cash down payment of $7,500.00 was $68,294.86. According to the Complaint, the Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiffs with serious defects and nonconformities under the warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities under the warranty. (Complaint¶10, 13.)
10/17/2023 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging causes of action for: 1. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT - BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 2. VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 3. VIOLATION OF SONG- BEVERLY ACT – SECTION 1793.2 4. NEGLIGENT REPAIR