Narine Deremsezyan v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff seeks a lodestar multiplier of 1.2. She bases this on the complexities of the present case and counsel's decision to advance litigation costs. However, the present action is a highly formulaic Song-Beverly case which does not justify a positive multiplier based on complexity. Nor is counsel's decision to advance litigation costs a dispositive factor. Thus, the Court does not award a multiplier.

Accordingly, after subtracting the $1,244.50 properly challenged by Defendant, the Court awards Plaintiff $16,429 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff is awarded $2,225.46 in costs.

Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred in the amount of $2,371.21. (Pengilley Decl. P. 24, Ex. C.) Defendant challenges multiple claimed costs.

First, it challenges $66.50 in filing costs and $35.25 in electronic service costs related to oppositions to motions filed by Defendant. It is not outside the ordinary for a litigator to oppose the motions of the other party; thus, the Court does not strike these costs.

Second, it objects to $155.75 in jury fees because the case did not proceed to trial. But it is normal for counsel to preserve the right to a jury trial for their client, even if settlement is the ultimate goal and result. However these fees may be returned upon request. Therfore the Court does not award money for jury fees. Thus, these are not stricken either.

Third, Defendant challenges Plaintiff's deposition costs. But these are allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A). Accordingly, the Court awards a total of $2,215.46 in costs.

In summary, the Court awards Plaintiff $16,429 in attorney's fees, does not award a lodestar multiplier, and awards Plaintiff $2,225.46 in costs. Thus, Defendant is ordered to pay $18,654.46 in attorney's fees and costs ([$16,429 in fees] + [$2,225.46 in costs] = $18,654.46).

Conclusion: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion in the partial amount of $18,654.46.

The Court tenders the following decision in the matter Narine Deremsezyan v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV04351, set for hearing on August 24, 2026. Narine Deremsezyan (Plaintiff) moves for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) in this matter. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al. (collectively, Defendants) have not filed an opposition. The motion is granted. A.

Legal Standard

The court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading, including adding or striking out the name of any party, or correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a)(1).)

California courts are required to permit liberal amendment of pleadings in the interest of justice between the parties to an action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a); Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175

Cal.App.3d 345, 352.) "Public policy dictates that leave to amend be liberally granted." (Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 23, 32 (Centex Homes).)

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, a motion to amend a pleading before trial must include the following content: (1) a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading; (2) a statement regarding what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted if any, and where they are located; and (3) a statement regarding what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where.

Subdivision (b) of rule 3.1324 additionally requires that the motion be accompanied by a separate, supporting declaration, specifying the following: (1) the amendment's effect; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. B.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order granting her leave to file an FAC adding additional allegations to support her negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims along with a new cause of action for conversion. (Hovsepyan Decl. P. 18, Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements of rule 3.1324(a) by providing a copy of the proposed amended pleading (ibid.) and a statement regarding the allegations to be added. Plaintiff has also satisfied the requirements of 3.1324(b). She has offered a declaration speaking to the proposed amendment's effect, why it is necessary and proper, and why it was not proposed earlier, namely that the relevant facts arose between February 2026 and now. (Id. P.P. 7-9, 14.) Thus, Plaintiff's motion is procedurally proper. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted. C.

Conclusion

The Court grants the motion.

Case Number: 26STCV04910 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 400 DEMURRERS WITHOUT MOTIONS TO STRIKE

The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Margaret Elizabeth Cipriano v. ServiceTitan, Inc., et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 26STCV04910, set for hearing on August 24, 2026. Michelle Drucker, Lexi Gonzalez, and ServiceTitan, Inc. (ST) (collectively, Defendants), each separately demur to specific causes of action contained within Margaret Cipriano's (Plaintiff) first amended complaint (FAC). Plaintiff opposes each demurrer. Drucker's demurrer is sustained in part, and Gonzalez and ST's are overruled. A.

Legal Standard

A demurrer is sustained where "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subd. (e).) "A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint." (Yalung v. State (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 71, 80.) In reviewing a complaint's legal sufficiency, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts