Montes v. GM

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR AUGUST 18, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Montes v. GM

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s fee motion totaling $31,432.77. This figure includes $21,718.40 in attorney’s

fees; a lodestar of 0.3, increasing attorney’s fees by $6,515.52; additional anticipated attorney’s fees of

$2,500.00; and costs of $698.85. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.

Attorney’s Rates

Plaintiff requests hourly rates of $575 for lead attorney Ashkan Reza (12 years’ experience); $375 for

attorneys Lauren Warwick and Chris Grigoryan; $140 for case manager/legal assistant Michelle Nguyen;

$125 for case managers Dianne Martin and Cristian Rivera; $258 for law clerk Donya Akradi; $125 for

legal assistant Patrice Go; and $95 for intake specialist Noemi Antipuesto and case manager Chris Coyoc.

(Reza Decl., ¶¶20–36.)

Reza contends his rates are often approved and submits two Los Angeles County Superior Court

decisions. (Reza Decl., ¶¶26–27; Exhs. E, F.) Defendant argues generally that the rates are excessive,

but does not propose specific reductions. The Court reduces the rates as follows: Reza to $500 per hour;

junior attorneys to $300 per hour; and the law clerk to $200 per hour. These reduced rates are more

appropriate in San Bernardino County. Defendant expressly accepts the staff rates for the other

categories, and they appear reasonable. With these adjusted rates, the Court finds the requested fees

adequately compensate counsel, and no multiplier is warranted.

Reasonable Hours

The starting point for any fee award is a calculation of reasonable hours reasonably expended. (Levy v.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 815.) Invoices are attached as Exhibit D.

Plaintiff does not separately total each biller, but based on the Court’s calculation, attorney Reza billed 9.3

hours; attorney Warwick billed 30.7 hours; attorney Grigoryan billed 1.5 hours; and law clerk Akradi billed

4.8 hours. Administrative staff billed more hours at their respective rates.

Defendant challenges the time entries. First, Defendant argues work performed by attorney Reza could

have been performed by a lower-billing attorney. Most of Reza’s work concerns this fee motion, and it is

reasonable that the senior attorney handle the fee motion given counsel’s likely control over billing

matters. The Court declines to reduce the claim on this basis.

Second, Defendant argues certain entries are duplicative. The Court does not find attorney time duplicates

administrative time; instead, the challenged administrative entries primarily reflect clerical matters more

properly characterized as overhead. The Court deducts the following:

• $475 from case manager Martin’s time (3.8 hours at $125/hour); • $28 from case manager/legal assistant Nguyen’s time (0.2 hours at $140/hour); • $87.50 for legal assistant Go (0.7 hours at $125/hour); • $57.00 for intake specialist Antipuesto (0.6 hours at $95/hour).

These deductions total $647.50.

Third, Defendant challenges other entries highlighted in blue and gold as unreasonably high, including

time to prepare and prosecute the fee motion and time spent reviewing disclosures. The Court finds the

time challenged in these highlights reasonable.

Finally, Defendant challenges the $2,500 request for anticipated fees related to the fee motion. The Court

finds that the approximately 6.2 hours claimed to prosecute the fee motion to date is sufficient to cover

prosecution of the entire motion, which is repetitive and routine. The Court therefore declines to award the

$2,500 in anticipated fees.

Lodestar Calculation

In light of the above reductions, the Court sets the lodestar as follows:

• Total Claimed: $31,432.77 • Reduction for attorney Reza: -$697.50 (rate reduced from $575 to $500 for 9.3 hours) • Reduction for attorney Warwick: -$2,302.50 (rate reduced from $375 to $300 for 30.7 hours) • Reduction for attorney Grigoryan: -$112.50 (rate reduced from $375 to $300 for 1.5 hours) • Reduction for law clerk Akradi: -$278.40 (rate reduced from $258 to $200 for 4.8 hours) • Reductions for clerical work: -$647.50

AWARD: $27,394.37

Although not reflected in this calculation, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for $2,500 in anticipated time

for work on the fee motion.

Multiplier

Plaintiff seeks a 0.3 multiplier. However, the purpose of a multiplier is to fix the fee at the fair market value

for the particular action, and the multiplier generally may not apply to work related to the attorney fee

motion. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 833; Pellegrino v. Robert Half Intern.,

Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 278, 296.)

As explained in Ketchum v. Moses, the contingent risk adjustment is intended to align incentives for fee

award cases with the fair market value of services where there is risk and delay. (Ketchum v. Moses

(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132–1133.) Nevertheless, the Court finds the contingency nature and delay are

already adequately addressed by the adjusted hourly rates. Additionally, although Plaintiff prevailed, the

results are not sufficiently extraordinary to justify an enhancement, particularly given the routine nature of

lemon law cases and Plaintiff’s failure to state how much money was received in settlement. The Court

therefore denies the multiplier.

Costs

Costs are typically challenged by a motion to tax costs served and filed within 15 days after service of the

cost memorandum. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Here, Plaintiff filed her memorandum of costs

concurrently with the motion. Defendant has not affirmatively challenged the $698.85 in costs claimed, and

has not moved to tax. The Court therefore grants costs in full.

RULING

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees exclusive of costs in the amount of $27,3 94.37; 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for a multiplier; and 3. The Court ALLOWS costs in the amount of $698.85.