Miller vs. FCA US LLC

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR TENTATIVE RULINGS

September 3, 2026

Judge R. Shawn Nelson Department C10

Department C10 hears law and motion on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.

Court reporters: Official court reporters are not provided in this department for any proceedings. If the parties desire the services of a court reporter, the parties should follow the procedures set forth in the Privately Retained Court Reporter Policy on the court’s website at www.occourts.org. Tentative rulings: The court endeavors to post tentative rulings on the court’s website by 9:00 a.m. the day of the hearing. Tentative rulings may not be posted in every case. Please do not call the department for tentative rulings if tentative rulings have not been posted.

The court will not entertain a request to continue a hearing or the filing of further documents once a tentative ruling has been posted. Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5210. Please do not call the department unless all parties submit on the tentative ruling. If all sides submit to the tentative ruling and so advise the court, the tentative ruling shall become the court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the court’s signature if appropriate under Cal.

R. Ct. 3.1312. Appearances and public access: Appearances, whether in person or remote, must comply with Civil Procedure Code section 367.75, California Rule of Court 3.672, Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 375, and Orange County Superior Court Appearance Procedure and Information—Civil Unlimited and Complex (pub. 9/9/22). Unless the court orders otherwise, remote appearances will be conducted via Zoom. All counsel and selfrepresented parties appearing via Zoom must check in through the court’s civil remote appearance website before the hearing begins.

Check-in instructions are available on the court’s website. The public may attend hearings by coming to court or via remote access as described above. Photographing, filming, recording, and/or broadcasting court proceedings are prohibited unless authorized pursuant to California Rule of Court 1.150 or Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 180. Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the court has not been notified that all parties submit to the tentative ruling, the court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling.

NO. CASE NAME MATTER

1:30 p.m. 1 Miller vs. FCA US Plaintiff Shuan Isaac Miller’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs LLC is GRANTED, subject to the deductions below.

The court awards Plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $30,687.50.

The court awards costs in the total amount of $6,638.55.

Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

Basis for Attorneys’ Fees

A party seeking an award of fees has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, documenting the appropriate hours spent, the hourly rates, and that the fees sought were reasonable and necessary to the conduct of the

litigation. (569 E. County Blvd. LLC v Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432).

Here, Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Code Civ. Proc. § 998 offer and Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d). Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to fees.

Reasonable Hourly Rate

The lodestar method for calculating attorneys’ fees applies to any statutory attorneys’ fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Galbiso v. Orosi Pub. Util. Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1089; see also K.I. v. Wagner (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.)

When determining a reasonable attorneys’ fees award using the lodestar method, the court begins by deciding the reasonable hours the prevailing party’s attorney spent on the case and multiplies that number by the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 998).

The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095.).

The court finds that counsel’s rates of $500 per hour and the paralegal rates of $200 and $225 per hour are reasonable. (See Decl. of Meehan, ¶ 13; Decl. of Goethals, ¶¶ 7 and 13).

Lodestar multiplier

In determining whether to apply a multiplier, the court considers a variety of factors such as the novelty and difficulty of the issues presented, the skill displayed in presenting them, the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and the contingent nature of the fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) The court is not required to impose a multiplier; the decision is discretionary. (Galbiso, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1089.)

The court declines to award a multiplier.

Hours Reasonably Expended

“[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous." (Horsford v Board of Trustees of California State University (2005)132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396; Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 [declarations of counsel are also "sufficient to meet the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the

fees incurred, without the need to produce copies of counsel's detailed billing statements.”].)

In this matter, Mr. Goethals attached the invoices and a spreadsheet summary. (See Decl. of Goethals, ¶¶ 15 and 16, Exs. 27 and 28). Excluding the request for a multiplier, Plaintiff requests $31,087.50 for 77.5 hours of attorney and paralegal work, which includes the anticipated time to prepare the Reply.

The Court will reduce the hours it determines were excessive or not supported. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816 [party seeking attorney fees has the “burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount” (internal quotation marks omitted)]). Fee award amounts are matters within the trial court’s discretion: the “trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.)

Furthermore, “[t]rial courts retain discretion to penalize block billing when the practice prevents them from discerning which tasks are compensable and which are not.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1010).

Defendant contests the following billable work as unreasonable and/or excessive:

-2.1 hours ($1,050) billed by Mr. Goethals for “[t]echnical research re: issues with vehicle recalls, technical service bulletins, and customer complaints. Prepare memo re cause of actions to include in complaint and pertinent legal issues.” Defendant contends that this is extensive research into routine issues that arise in virtually every Song-Beverly action. The court finds that 2.1 hours for this work is not unreasonable.

-1.3 hours ($650) by Mr. Goethals to “[r]eview repair orders, ROS, and summary of client communication with manufacturer/dealership. Prepare memo re general discovery plan and specific witnesses to depose.” Defendant contends this work is premature because Plaintiff was developing a discovery strategy before reviewing Defendant’s discovery responses. This also appears to be block-billing, and it cannot be determined which amount was incurred for preparing the memo versus reviewing the documents. The court deducts.8 and awards.5 hours ($250) for this work.

-2.1 hours ($1,050) by Ms. Meehan to “[r]eview case file in preparation for drafting complaint; revise and revise complaint.” Defendant contends that this is duplicative and block-billing, and that Mr. Goethals and a paralegal spent a collective time of approximately 10 to 15 hours reviewing the same materials. However, Defendant does not specify which entries total this “10 to 15 hours” amount. There are various document review entries by paralegals, but only 2 entries for actually drafting/revising the complaint (.3 3

by paralegal Mr. Womack and the 2.1 entry by Ms. Meehan). The court finds this reasonable.

-2.1 hours ($1,050) by Ms. Meehan to “[r]eview FCA doc production and analyze same; draft outline for FCA PMQ depo; continue to analyze doc production and refining outline for depo.” Defendant contends that Ms. Meehan repeatedly billed for analyzing the same document production while simultaneously drafting and refining the PMQ outline. However, there appears to be only one other entry (.6) relating to deposition preparation before this deposition was taken. The court finds this total time to be reasonable.

-2.1 hours ($1,050) by Ms. Meehan to “[r]eview Orange Coast CDJR’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, set on; review document production; draft meet and confer letter to defense counsel re in sufficient responses.” Defendant contends that this is block-billing and that the meet and confer likely concerned routine discovery issues. The court finds this time reasonable for review of documents and preparing a meet and confer letter regarding the same.

-.1.5 hours ($750) by Ms. Meehan to “[r]eview and revise mediation brief.” Defendant contends that this is duplicative of work by the paralegals who spent 1.8 hours to draft the mediation brief. However, a total time of 3.3 hours on a mediation brief is not unreasonable.

-3.6 hours and 1.2 hours by Ms. Meehan for deposition preparation of OC CDJRF employees. Defendant contends that the hours expended preparing for the technician deposition are excessive and unreasonable, and that the CDJR technician depositions involve substantially the same exhibits and largely the same questions. However, the court finds that 4.8 hours in total for this work is reasonable.

Finally, Defendant contests the total of 6.5 hours submitted to the court in anticipated attorney time (4.5 attorney hours and 2 paralegal hours), because this time has not been incurred. In support of the Reply, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Ms. Meehan who declares: “I personally spent 4.5- hours reviewing FCA's Opposition and the Santana Declaration, researching and preparing Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum, preparing Plaintiff's Objections to the Declaration of Alexis C. Santana, and preparing this declaration. OLG's paralegals spent an additional 2.0-hours on those tasks.” (Decl. of Meehan, ¶ 3). The court will award this amount.

Pursuant to the above, the deductions total $400, and the total fee award is $30,687.50.

Costs

Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $6,638.55 and filed a memorandum of costs on 5/12/26. Defendant did not file a motion to tax costs. (See Cal. R.

4