Trevor Lewerenz v. Ford Motor Company

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

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV424337 Calhoun MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE Cross-Complaint v. City of Monte Sereno, et al. Unopposed and Granted LINE 2 24CV453643 Norma Navarro MOTION TO COMPEL – Further Responses to Requests for Productions v. of Documents, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions Ralph Borelli, et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 2 LINE 3 MOTION TO COMPEL – Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; and for Sanctions

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 MOTION TO QUASH – Deposition Subpoenas Issues to 1944 Borelli Trustee

Off calendar LINE 5 MOTION TO QUASH - Deposition subpoena Issued to KB Home South Bay Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 6 MOTION TO QUASH - Deposition Subpoena Issues to Borelli Investment Company and for Monetary Sanctions

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 6 LINE 7 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER By Defs Borelli and RNB Associates

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 8 LINE 9 25CV465220 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 9

Calendar line 9 Case Name: Trevor Lewerenz v. Ford Motor Company Case No.: 25CV465220

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

BACKGROUND

This is a lemon law case arising under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code section 1790 et seq.). On or around September 28, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Ford Maverick. After taking possession, Plaintiff experienced multiple problems with the vehicle that required repeated visits to Ford dealerships. Before filing suit, Plaintiff requested that Ford repurchase the Subject Vehicle; Ford denied the request on February 14, 2025. Plaintiff retained counsel on March 25, 2025, filed the complaint on May 6, 2025, and Ford answered on June 12, 2025.

The parties mediated on January 23, 2026 and reached an agreement resolving the matter. Plaintiff signed the written Settlement Agreement on March 26, 2026. Under the settlement, Ford agreed to pay a total of $35,000.00 — a $21,239.45 payoff of Plaintiff's outstanding loan balance to Wells Fargo Auto plus a $13,760.55 direct payment to Plaintiff — in exchange for the return of the Subject Vehicle.

The Settlement Agreement provides that "Defendant agrees Plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to be determined by the Court by way of a noticed motion pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d)." Plaintiff now seeks $18,460.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,209.75 in costs and expenses, for a total award of $19,669.75. Ford opposes on two grounds: (1) the $600 hourly rate for attorney Matthew Faler is unreasonable and should be reduced to between $350 and $450 per hour; and (2) approximately 32% of the work claimed as attorney time should have been performed by Plaintiff's paralegal at a lower rate.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Song-Beverly Act provides that "[i]f the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action." (§ 1794(d).)

California courts use the lodestar method to determine reasonable attorneys' fees. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. The reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant community for similar work by attorneys of comparable skill and experience. The court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate. Once the lodestar amount is calculated, the court may adjust it upward or downward based on case-specific factors, including the novelty and complexity of the issues, the skill displayed by counsel, and the results obtained. The prevailing party has the burden of establishing that the hours claimed were actually expended and that both the hours and the rates were reasonable.

ANALYSIS

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the terms of the settlement agreement. Ford has stipulated to Plaintiff's prevailing party status. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

REASONABLE HOURLY RATE A. Attorney Matthew E. Faler Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $600 for attorney Matthew E. Faler. Mr. Faler was admitted to the California State Bar in June 2006 and represents that he has extensive California practice experience and has handled hundreds of Song-Beverly and auto-fraud matters. Mr. Faler and paralegal Casandra Castellon were the only billers on this file.

Ford argues that the requested rate is excessive for the prevailing market and should be reduced to between $350 and $450 per hour.

Plaintiff responds that the case was staffed leanly with a single attorney and one paralegal, that Mr. Faler's approximately 20 years of experience and substantial Song-Beverly practice justify the requested rate, and that Ford's proposed range does not reflect current market rates for experienced lemon-law counsel.

The Court has reviewed the billing records submitted in this case. The matter was staffed efficiently with only attorney Faler and paralegal Casandra Castellon performing billable work. Lean staffing of this kind reduces duplication and inefficiency, and the Court credits it in setting a reasonable rate.

The Court exercises its discretion based on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market for lemon law cases. Mr. Faler was admitted to the California State Bar in June 2006, giving him approximately 20 years in practice, and represents that he has handled hundreds of Song-Beverly and auto-fraud matters. The Court credits that experience and the efficient, oneattorney staffing of this file. Balancing counsel's substantial experience against the prevailing market rate for Song-Beverly work and the routine, straightforward character of this dispute — a case that resolved at mediation approximately eight months after filing, without dispositive motion practice or trial — the Court finds that a reasonable hourly rate for Mr.

Faler is $500 per hour. That rate credits his tenure and experience while remaining calibrated to the modest complexity of the matter and its early resolution.

B. Paralegal Casandra Castellon

Plaintiff requests $125 per hour for paralegal Casandra Castellon, who has worked for the firm for about one year and holds a college degree. Ford does not object to the paralegal rate of $125 per hour. The Court finds this rate reasonable for paralegal work in Song-Beverly matters in Santa Clara County. The rate is approved.

HOURS REASONABLY EXPENDED A. Total Hours Claimed The billing records show the following breakdown: Work product: $9,640.00 Email correspondence: $7,500.00

Phone calls: $1,320.00

The work-product log reflects 15.9 attorney hours by Mr. Faler at $600 and 0.8 paralegal hours by Ms. Castellon at $125, totaling $9,640.00 (with a $100 arithmetic discrepancy in the declaration). The email log reflects 12.5 attorney hours at $600 per hour, totaling $7,500.00. The phone log reflects 2.2 attorney hours totaling $1,320.00. Total attorney time claimed: approximately 30.6 hours Total paralegal time claimed: 0.8 hours

B. Ford's Objections Ford contends that approximately 32% of the tasks billed at Mr. Faler's attorney rate should have been performed by a paralegal, not at a $600 attorney rate. Ford does not, however, identify which specific tasks it means. Plaintiff responds that Ford's failure to identify particular entries makes the objection impossible to answer directly. Plaintiff further explains that Ms. Castellon was hired in August 2025 with no prior paralegal or legal-assistant experience, learned quickly, and assumed full paralegal duties by November 2025, and that Mr. Faler remains the sole attorney in the firm's lemon department and therefore performs the necessary tasks on each case.

Analysis

The Court has carefully reviewed the detailed billing records at Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 attached to the Appendix of Exhibits. The Court finds that the vast majority of work performed by Mr. Faler required attorney-level skill and judgment. The work included case intake and evaluation, complaint drafting, discovery, mediation preparation and attendance, and postmediation settlement negotiations. Ford's blanket assertion that 32% of the work should have been performed by a paralegal is unsupported by specific objections to particular billing entries.

The Court's independent review of the email log confirms that a substantial portion of the 12.5 attorney hours claimed for email correspondence consists of one- and two-line exchanges billed in 0.1-hour increments — repeated document-forwarding messages, scheduling confirmations, brief acknowledgments, and mediation-logistics traffic. Exhibit in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Those tasks either could have been delegated to the paralegal at $125 per hour or handled in less attorney time. Mr. Faler is an experienced Song-Beverly practitioner, and this case, which settled at mediation approximately eight months after filing did not present the volume or complexity of correspondence one would expect in a litigated matter.

The Court reduces the email correspondence time from 12.5 hours to 8.5 hours — a 4.0- hour reduction — to account for administrative and repetitive communications that either consumed excessive attorney time or should have been performed by the paralegal.

Reasonable attorney email time: 8.5 hours (12.5 hours claimed minus 4.0 hours) Attorney phone time: 2.2 hours (approved as claimed Paralegal time: 0.8 hours (approved as claimed) Ex. in Supp. of Mot. for Att'ys' Fees.

Ford observes that Mr. Faler billed 5.0 hours on July 16, 2026 for drafting the fee motion and closing tasks at $600 per hour. The Court agrees the entry warrants reduction, though not on the meet-and-confer theory Ford advances. The settlement agreement expressly contemplated a noticed motion for fee

determination, and Ford cites no authority requiring pre-motion negotiation over statutory fees. The reduction is warranted for a different reason: this is a routine Song-Beverly fee motion filed by an attorney with a substantial Song-Beverly and auto-fraud practice. The moving papers rely on the standard lodestar framework and the settlement's stipulation to prevailing-party status. For counsel of Mr. Faler's experience preparing this type of motion, 5.0 hours is excessive. The Court finds that 3 hours is a reasonable amount of attorney time for the memorandum, supporting declaration, exhibits, and request for judicial notice, and reduces the work-product time by 2 hours accordingly.

The Court further notes that Plaintiff did not request any prospective time for reviewing Ford's opposition, drafting the reply, or attending the hearing on this motion. The reply declaration adds no supplemental hours. No adjustment on that front is therefore required.

MULTIPLIER No multiplier has been requested. None is warranted. This was a routine Song-Beverly case that settled at mediation without trial. While the result obtained was favorable to Plaintiff, the case did not involve novel legal issues, exceptional risk, or other factors that would justify enhancement of the lodestar.

COSTS AND EXPENSES Plaintiff seeks $1,209.75 in costs and expenses, itemized as follows: Expense Amount Complaint eFiling Fee (On-Call $513.48 Legal, Inv. 471179) Service of Process on Ford Motor $119.53 Company (On-Call Legal, Inv. 471179A) eFiling Fee (On-Call Legal, Inv. $34.68 520571) eFiling Fee (On-Call Legal, Inv. $38.68 534983) eFiling Fee (On-Call Legal, Inv. $38.38 539194) Plaintiff's share of mediator fee $300.00 (WDRC Hazelton) Motion Fee for Attorneys' Fees $60.00 Motion eFiling Fee for Attorneys' Fees $35.00 Motion (est.) eFiling Fee for Reply (est.) $35.00 eFiling Fee for Request for Dismissal $35.00 (est.) Total $1,209.75

Ford does not oppose the claimed costs.

The Court finds that all claimed costs were reasonably incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action. Civil Code section 1794(d) permits recovery of

costs and expenses beyond those listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, including mediation fees and electronic filing fees. The costs are approved as requested: $1,209.75.

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff shall prepare and submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling, setting forth the final recalculated fee amount, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.

Defendant shall pay attorneys fees and costs within 30 days of entry of the signed order.

- oo0oo -