Francisco Javier Contreras Chaires v. General Motors, LLC et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 09/02/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION v. Michael Bench et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 25CV459519 Mathew Brenner et al Off Calendar v. Steve Wozniak, et al. LINE 3 25CV466769 Francisco Contreras MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Chaires v. General Motos LLC et Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 al LINE 4 25CV467169 Wilkinson et al MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL v. Ninh Tang, et al Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendant. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Good Cause Appearing, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.

LINE 5 25CV470868 Thomas Huang et al. MOTION: ADMISSIONS DEEM ADMITTED v. Tuan Luong et. al. Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendant Tuan Luong. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Good Cause Appearing, the motion is GRANTED. The truth of all specified facts in the Request for Admissions, Set One, 1-7 propounded by Plaintiff Thomas Huang on Defendant Tuan Luong on February 12, 2026, shall be deemed admitted. Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.

Calendar Line 3 Case Name: Francisco Javier Contreras Chaires v. General Motors, LLC et al. Case No. 25CV466769

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES & COSTS Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) following settlement of this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant opposes the motion, primarily arguing that the fees requested are excessive and based on templated work.

Reasonableness of Fees

Civil Code section 1794(d) mandates an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing buyer. In determining a reasonable fee, courts apply the lodestar method, calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.

Plaintiff seeks $15,937.50 in attorney’s fees based on 41.6 hours of work which includes 5.5 hours of time anticipated in reviewing Defendant’s opposition, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing on this motion. Plaintiff also seeks $985.67 in costs. Plaintiff requests hourly rates of $450-525 for attorney work performed by attorneys Jorge L. Acosta, Esq and Christopher Urner, Esq. and $250 for paralegal work.

Having reviewed the moving papers, opposition, reply, declarations, and billing records submitted, the Court finds that the number of hours expended is generally reasonable in this routine Song-Beverly repurchase claim that resolved after approximately 5 months. The records are sufficiently detailed, and the Court does not find pervasive duplication or improper billing practices warranting a broad reduction in hours. The Court acknowledges that reductions by Plaintiff’s counsel have already been made.

With respect to hourly rates, the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $450-525 for attorneys and $200 for paralegals reflect the prevailing market rates for comparable services in this community. The court finds the anticipated time unreasonable and reduces it to 2.5 hours (.25 hours will be added if either party contests this tentative.)

With respect to costs, Plaintiff seeks recovery of $985.67, of which $93.33 for “other” is unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. The Court finds $450-525 for attorneys is reasonable 2. The court sets $200/hour as prevailing rate for paralegal work; 3. The Court will apply a reasonable of anticipated time to 2.5 hours.

4. Unless the Plaintiff files documentation supporting the claimed “other” costs with the proposed order, total costs will be awarded at $892.34

Plaintiff shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling, including the breakdown of the recalculated fee award and supporting documentation for costs (if any) accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo -