Flores v. Hyundai Motor America

# Case Name Tentative

57. Flores v. Plaintiff Sidney Flores’ motion for attorney fees is DENIED. Hyundai The moving papers do not identify any amount of fees sought, Motor nor provide any evidence as to the time incurred, or how any America claimed time incurred was reasonable or necessary. (Serrano 2023- v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [party seeking attorney fees 01343056 has the burden of proof as to the reasonableness and necessity of same]; Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320 [party seeking attorney fees “bear[s] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates ... [t]he evidence should allow the court to consider whether the case was overstaffed, how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended;” emphasis added, internal citation omitted].)

The court observes that moving party’s counsel has filed two previous fee motions, which also suffered from evidentiary deficiencies. (ROA 56, 58, 59 [first fee motion, denied without prejudice 11-10-26]; ROA 64, 66 [second fee motion, withdrawn by moving party].)

The court declines to consider plaintiff’s “Notice of Errata” (ROA 98) addressing this issue, which was not filed until 8-3- 26, after defendant had filed an opposition. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [court’s discretion to refuse to consider late-filed papers]; Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assoc. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 262 [same]; see also Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538 [ordinarily, new evidence presented for the first time on Reply is not considered, unless the opposing party has notice and an opportunity to respond].)

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.