Ezra G. Ryu (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Astrid Souto (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Carrie Shumake (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Nicole Basilio (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Alejandra Pastor (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Grace Gonzaludo (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Alyssa Ontiveros (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Franchesca Ann (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Carolyne Castillo (American Lemon Law Group, LLP) — for Plaintiff
Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEREK SALKELD, Case No.: CIVSB2508090 Plaintiff, [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ GENERAL MOTORS LLC, FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff Derek Salkeld (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM” or “Defendant”), based on an alleged defective 2021
Chevrolet Silverado 1500, purchased new in March 2021. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9.) Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges three causes of action relating to violations of Song-Beverly Act.
On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.
On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed the current motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and
supporting declaration. On March 18, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs. On April 15,
Defendant filed its opposition, including a supporting declaration. Plaintiff filed his Reply in
Support on April 21. After reviewing the written submissions, issuing a tentative ruling, and
conducting a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues its final ruling.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Where the buyer of a vehicle prevails in an action under the Song-Beverly Act, they
“shall be allowed by the court to recover ... 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 ... .” (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).)
“[T]he starting point of every fee award ... must be a calculation of the attorney’s
services in terms of the time he has expended on the case. Anchoring the analysis to this concept
is the only way of approaching the problem that can claim objectivity, a claim which is
obviously vital to the prestige of the bar and the courts.” (In re Vitamin Cases (2003) 110 Cal.
App. 4th 1041, 1058, internal citation omitted.) “[T]he award of attorney fees under the Song-
Beverly Act, unlike other fee-shifting statutes, is limited to actual hours both expended and
GM argues that Plaintiff’s counsels’ rates are inflated and should be reduced, but a
review of court decisions has found that the hourly rates proposed by Plaintiff are within the
range other judges have found reasonable in other similar Song-Beverly fee motions. (See, e.g.,1
Hamm v. FCA US LLC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019), No. 3:17-cv-0577-AJB-BGS, 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 141480, at *8-9 (finding rates of $350-$550/hour to be reasonable); (Petropoulos v. FCA
US LLC (S.D. Cal. May 29, 2019), No. 17-CV-0398 W (KSC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89984, at
*5-6 (finding rates of $275-$550/hour to be reasonable); Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC
(2016), 4 Cal. App. 5th 462, 473-74 (finding a rate of $575 reasonable where BMW argued the
case was not complex and provided evidence that counsel for BMW charged much lower hourly
rates); Shaw v. Ford Motor Co., (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2020), No. 5:18cv1169 JLS (KK), 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 2320, 2020 WL 57273, at *3 (approving rates between $200 and $550); Canani v.
Ford Motor Co., No. 2:21-CV-03346-SB-JC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106409, 2022 WL
2102893, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022) (approving rates of $490 per hour for partner and $425
and $435 per hour for associates); Odadjian v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC (C.D. Cal. Aug.
18, 2022, No. 2:21-cv-09333-SB-GJS) 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215767, at *5, finding that “a rate
of no more than $500 is reasonable for an attorney with,” 15 years of experience.)
1 Unpublished federal district court decisions are “citable notwithstanding California Rules of Court rule 977, which only bars citation of unpublished California opinions. Therefore, [unpublished federal district court decisions] are citable as persuasive, although not precedential, authority.” (City of Hawthorne ex rel. Wohlner v. H&C Disposal Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1678, fn. 5 (emphasis in original).)
There are only three attorneys who have billed to this case, namely, Mr. Ryu, who began
practicing in 2017, with a billing rate of $500/hour; Ms. Shumake, who began practicing in 2018,
and has a billing rate of $450/hour; and Ms. Souto, a junior associate with a billing rate of
$300/hour. Based on their years of experience, seniority of their titles, and proportional billing
rates, the Court finds the attorney billing rates to be reasonable.
GM also contests paralegal/administrative rates. These professionals are listed with rates
of $125-$250/hour. “Paralegal and secretarial support services are recoverable in statutory fee
awards.” (Garcia v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2023, No. 22-cv-1474-GPC) 2023 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 102160, at *10; see also Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (Cal.
Ct. App. 1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 914, 951 (stating “necessary support services for attorneys, e.g.,
secretarial and paralegal services, are includable within an award of attorney fees”).)
“The Southern District of California has upheld paralegal rates ranging from $155/hour to
$265/hour in recent ‘lemon law’ cases.” (Blood v. Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22,
2024, No. 23-cv-1463-WQH-AHG) 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213350, at *15.) In Garcia v. Ford
Motor Co., supra, the District Court confirmed as reasonable “paralegal and legal assistants at