Gomez vs. General Motors LLC

MC-053) with all fields in the form completed, including the new hearing dates. The order will then become effective upon filing a proof of service showing service of the resulting order on the client.

The court vacates the 8/17/26 CMC and sets a OSC re: dismissal for failure to file a FAC for 12/14/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. No first amended complaint was filed as ordered by the court on 11/17/25. At the next hearing, the court shall dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581(f) unless plaintiff files a first amended complaint.

Green shall give notice.

303 Gomez vs. Before the Court is the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, General Motors etc., filed on 5/12/26 by Plaintiff Leslie Silvana LLC Gomez (Plaintiff) against Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM).

As a preliminary matter, GM claims here that the Motion is untimely under Rule 3.1702(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court. Had a dismissal been entered, that would be correct. (See Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 644, 649-650.) But under the circumstances here, the Court finds the Motion to be timely.

On the merits, it is undisputed the parties’ settlement agreement permits Plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d), in an amount to be determined on noticed motion. A court assessing such a claim is to use the lodestar as the start, to assess the reasonableness of the claim. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 246-247.) The party claiming fees has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and reasonable in amount.

(Id; Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Ca1.App.4th 807, 816.)

Here, the hourly rates for counsel appear generally reasonable in the context of a contingency lemon law claim (assuming the $430/hour rate claimed for Mr. McCabe in ROA 37 at ¶ 21, rather than the $525/hour rate shown for him on the invoice at Ex. A). However, the claimed paralegal rate seems high, and the paralegal time claimed seems excessive in context. In addition, the $3,500 flat fee claimed for services rendered prior to engagement is not adequately shown to be appropriate here and so will not be allowed. Plaintiff has also failed to show that any multiplier is warranted. The Court therefore finds that the sum which Plaintiff should recover for attorney’s fees is $15,864.

With regard to claimed costs, the opposition has failed to show why any should not be recoverable here, and the invoices presented reflect reasonable expenses. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff should recover $699.80 in costs here.

The total award for fees and costs here is therefore $16,563.80.

The court continues the OSC re: dismissal on settled case from 8/17/26 to 12/7/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

304 Forte Properties The unopposed demurrer of cross-defendants Mo, LLC vs. Balboa Real Estate, Inc. and Ashkon Babaee Anonymity (collectively, Cross-Defendants) directed to the Assets, LLC cross-complaint of Anonymity Assets, LLC (Cross- Complainant) is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT.