DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVRS2503491·sanbernardino·Civil·Lemon Law
Hearing 9 days agoGRANTED

Rigo Hernandez v. General Motors, LLC

Attorneys fees and costs

Hearing date
Aug 13, 2026
Department
R12
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$24,109.46$22,262.00$1,847.46$3,090$1,030

Parties

PlaintiffRigo Hernandez
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING FOR AUGUST 13, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Rigo Hernandez v. General Motors, LLC – CIVRS2503491 Motion: Attorneys fees and costs Movant: Plaintiff, Rigo Hernandez Respondent: Defendant, General Motors (No Opposition) Ruling: Attorneys fees and costs GRANTED in the total amount of $24,109.46 Plaintiff to provide Order and give notice. ______________________________________________________________________________

The motion is unopposed by Defendant. The Court grants Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $24,109.46

Plaintiff seeks $22,262.00 in lodestar attorneys fees and $1,847.46 in costs. The Court finds the costs reasonable after reviewing Danna Declaration and Exhs. A-D. Plaintiff further estimated an additional 4 hours for reviewing the anticipated opposition and another 2 hours for drafting a reply for an additional $3,090 and an additional 2 hours, $1,030, responding to a motion to tax costs. No opposition was filed, nor a motion to tax costs, thus the additional requested amounts were never incurred, and are therefore denied. Plaintiff also seeks a multiplier of.2 based on delay of payment and results obtained. The Court denies the multiplier as the time from filing to settlement was 6 months, which by most measures is speedy. Also, the results obtained are expected as GM repurchased the vehicle in the same period of time.

Dated: August 13, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share