CRYSTAL Y. JHUN vs. LAD-MB, LLC

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 309) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 309 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309

CRYSTAL Y. JHUN vs. LAD-MB, LLC | Case No.: 24STCV03517 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 | Plaintiff is awarded $ 40,000 in attorney fees.

On 2/13/2024, Plaintiff Crystal Y. Jhun (Plaintiff) filed suit against LAD-MB, LLC, US Bancorp, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, alleging: (1) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) concealment; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) violation of Civil Code section 1632; (7) unfair competition; and (8) cause of action under Vehicle Code section 11711.

On 5/27/2026, Plaintiff moved for attorney fees totaling $107,989.00.

Legal Standard

The party claiming attorneys' fees must establish entitlement to such fees and the reasonableness of the fees claimed. (Civic Western Corporation v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 16.)

"Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties[.]" (CCP Sec. 1021.)

"It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion." (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.)

In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment. (Id.)

In determining what constitutes a reasonable compensation for an attorney who has rendered services in connection with a legal proceeding, the court may and should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorneys' efforts, their learning, their age, and their experience in the particular type of work demanded the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 657.)

In determining the proper amount of fees to award, courts use the lodestar method. The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of reasonable hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate.

"Fundamental to its determination ... [is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... in the presentation of the case." (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).)

A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney. (Id. at 49.)

" Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues. A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether." (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV); see also Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1587 ("The trial court could make its own evaluation of the reasonable worth of the work done in light of the nature of the case, and of the credibility of counsel's declaration unsubstantiated by time records and billing statements.")

Reasonable attorney fees should be based on an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., the market value of services rendered, not on some notion of cost incurred. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1090.)

The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. (Id. at 1096.)

The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. (Id.)

The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (Id.)

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a total award of $107,989.00 in attorney fees against Defendant LAD-MB, LLC.

Rates

In Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal. App. 5th 24, 41, the trial court reduced the rates of Bryan Altman of the Altman Law Group, who has 30-plus years of litigation experience with over 100 jury trials, of which 20-plus were as lead trial counsel in lemon law cases, from $650 to $500 per hour, reduced Steve Mikhov of the Knight Law Group from $500 to $400, and reduced all the associates' rates that ranged from $450 to $350 to $300 per hour. (Id. at 8-9.)

In support of the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal held that: [E]ven if Morris established that her attorneys' rates were generally commensurate with other consumer law attorneys with the same level of experience and skill, Morris ignores that there are a number of factors that the trial court may have taken into consideration in determining that reductions in the attorneys' hourly rates were warranted. The court reasonably could have reduced the rates based on its finding that the matter was not complex; that it did not go to trial; that the name partners were doing work that could have been done by lower-billing attorneys; and that all the attorneys were doing work that could have been done by paralegals. (Id. at pp. 23-24.)

Similarly, Judge Randolph Hammock of the Los Angeles County Superior Court recently found rates of $350 per hour appropriate for an "experienced" lawyer to take a lemon law case all the way through trial. (See Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 245-46 ["The court found the requested fee amount "was just not reasonable."... The court decided that $350 "is a reasonable hourly rate for the services that were done."].)

Here, Plaintiffs counsel's claimed rates range from $315-$750/hour for attorneys and $150-205/hr for paralegals. The average blended rate for the work on this case was approximately $463.27/hour. (Barry Decl., P. 3; COE, Ex. 33.)

The Court reduces counsels' hourly rates to a blended rate of $400, consistent with Mikhaeilpoor. In support of this reduction, the Court notes that the matter was not complex, the case did not go to trial, and litigation practice did not require a high degree of skill or effort.

Hours

Plaintiff's counsel claims 233.1 hours of work by six different timekeepers. (See Motion, Table at 11:10-17.)

A review of the billings records indicates evidence of padding or duplication. For example, counsel bills 9.1 hours merely for inter-office communication. 77.6 hours were billed for discovery which was primarily templated.

Moreover, of the 77.6 hours Auto Fraud billed for discovery, at least 37.4 hours pertains to discovery propounded on U.S. BANK (the lender/holder) and Travelers (the surety). As noted by Defendant "U.S. BANK and TRAVELERS do not have knowledge of whether there was pre-sale repair work done to the Subject Vehicle and/or what language the transaction was negotiated in. At best, they can review the documents produced by DTLA (the dealership) just the same as JHUN." (Opp., 6: 24-27.)

Given the Court's power to make "across-the-board percentage cuts either in the numbers of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure," the Court finds only 100 hours reasonably spent. (Gonzalez v. City of Maywood (9th Cir. 2013) 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (Gonzalez). ($400 x 100 hrs = $40,000.)

It is so ordered.

Dated: August, 2026