Motion for attorney fees and costs
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: August 11, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 6 24CV448738 Oralia Rodriguez Motion by plaintiff Oralia Rodriguez for attorney fees and costs as the v. General prevailing party in this Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act action. (Civ. Motors, LLC Code, § 1794, subd. (d) [authorizing recovery of attorney fees that were “reasonably incurred”].) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by defendant General Motors, LLC.
Defendant argues the motion is untimely, and that the amount requested is unreasonable. Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 644, 646–647, relied on by defendant to argue plaintiff’s motion is untimely, is distinguishable because the court notice sent to the litigants in this case was different than the notice of dismissal sent by the court in Hatlevig. Hatlevig also did not involve a notice of conditional settlement, but rather a settlement announced in open court.
Plaintiff requests $21,729 in attorney fees, $712.94 in costs, and a 0.3 multiplier. The court finds the attorney rates of $525/hour and $430/hour, and the paralegal rate of $250/hour, are reasonable. Plaintiff risked forfeiting any fee award by not clearly setting forth the total number of hours claimed, much less a breakdown between the time spent by counsel and that spent by a paralegal. The court cannot award a lodestar that is not provided to the court for its review. By the court’s rough calculation, the claimed hours are as follows: 15.3 hours by attorney Khoubian; 3.3 hours by attorney McCabe; and 36.93 hours by a paralegal.
Plaintiff also seeks $3,500 for work related to case initiation, with no breakdown of hours worked. The court denies the request for that $3,500 because it is not adequately supported by the moving papers.
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 court also agrees with defendant that the time claimed for this case is unreasonable. The motion for attorney fees was the only noticed motion in this action. The matter settled before a trial date was set. Both Khoubian and the paralegal recorded a large number of entries for communication- related tasks that require less time than that reflected in the billing records. That overbilling supports reducing the total award by 10 percent. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 250 [percentage reduction acceptable if based on concise but clear explanation].) No multiplier is warranted. Plaintiff’s attorney fee motion is
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: August 11, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
GRANTED IN PART: the court awards attorney fees in the amount of $16,406.10 ($21,729 minus $3,500 equals $18,229, and then reduced by 10 percent). Plaintiff is also awarded its costs of $712.94. Defendant forfeited any challenge to costs by not filing a motion to tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) The court will prepare the order.
Line 7 25CV457236 Harold Davis et Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. David Krause et al.
Line 8 25CV458303 Jennifer Harris v. Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. FCA US, LLC et al.
- oo0oo -
9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING
Line 1 2015-1-CV- Vishal Gobhil et al. Order of examination: parties to appear. 288617 v. IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”) et al.
Line 2 2015-1-CV- Vishal Gobhil et al. Order of examination: parties to appear. 288617 v. IDC Technologies, Inc. (“IDC”) et al.
Line 3 22CV403398 Ha Thanh Nguyen Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney of record: parties to v. Kelly La appear.
- oo0oo -
5