Motion for Attorney Fees
# 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 (ROA 56, 58, 59 [first fee motion, denied without prejudice 11-10-26]; ROA 64, 66 [second fee motion, withdrawn by moving party].)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.
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?”
58. Martinez v. Plaintiff Eudardo Martinez’ Motion for Attorney Fees is American GRANTED. Honda Motor Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion is not timely filed, Co. Inc. pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1). 2024- Defendant argues that at the latest, Plaintiff had until 5/13/26 01419984 to file this motion, consisting of 180 days from the entry of the dismissal of this action on 11/14/25.
The court does not have to reach that issue, as the court finds good cause to extend any time to file under Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(d). (“For good cause, the trial judge may extend the time for filing a motion for attorney's fees in the absence
# Case Name Tentative
of a stipulation or for a longer period than allowed by stipulation.” Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(d); “Rule 3.1702(d) is ‘remedial’ and is to be given a liberal, rather than strict interpretation. [Citation.]” (Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Assn., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 128, 135.)
Defendant General Motors, LLC shall pay $18,453.75 in reasonable attorney fees. (See Civ. Code §1794, subd. (d) [Song-Beverly attorney fees]; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096 [lodestar; trial court’s discretion]; Reynolds v. Ford Motor Company (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1112 [same]; Jacobson Decl. ¶¶ 91-93 [hours spent], 68-90 [description of services performed]; 3-6; 44-46, 48, 50, 52, 54, Ex. 38, 39 [justification for hourly rates sought], and Ex. 40 [timekeeping records].)
The attorney fee award consists of the reasonably expended hours of work at the reasonable hourly rates sought by timekeepers listed in the motion at their requested rates.
Plaintiff has adequately established a basis for the reasonableness of the hourly fees requested by providing evidence of each timekeeper’s experience and qualifications and reference to rates charged by other lemon law attorneys in the Orange County market.
The court credits the accuracy of Moving Party’s time records. (See City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784-785.) However, the court has reviewed the provided timekeeping records and finds that there were several instances where Plaintiff’s request exceeded the hours reasonably necessary to accomplish the tasks listed. The court’s fee award has excised the hours the court finds to have been unreasonably spent.
The court declines to award a multiplier. (See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 [trial court discretion to award multiplier].) This was a standard lemon law case. Counsel’s skill and contingency risk are reflected in the reasonable hourly rates described above.
Defendant’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
59. Mikhael v. Plaintiff Medhat Mikhael, MD’s Application for a Right to Attach Physician Order and order for issuance of a Writ of Attachment Partners of (“Application”) against defendant is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §483.010, subd, (a).)