Francisco Guevara v. Servicon Systems, Inc., et al.

Third, Defendant argues that the $3,819 billed to prepare Eredia to take a deposition is excessive. In total, Eredia spent almost 7 hours preparing. The Court agrees that this is a high number, but given the reduction in Eridia's rate to reflect his experience level, the Cout will approve the stated time.

Fourth, Defendant challenges the $1,867.50 in fees related to preparing subpoenas. However, the preparation of subpoenas does require reviewing records and other tasks; the Court does not view these claimed fees as unreasonable. Thus, the Court credits these fees.

Fifth, Defendant challenges $3,001.50 in fees related to unnecessary entries. Defendant argues that counsel has billed excessively for creating outlines to prepare for standard hearing and researching various matters. The Court does not find these claimed fees unreasonable. It is proper to exercise diligence in litigating matters, even when they are formulaic or involve familiar issues, such as in Song-Beverly litigation. Thus, the Court credits these fees as well.

Sixth, Defendant challenges $1,680 in fees for the completion of clerical tasks by counsel and paralegals of administrative coordination activity as excessively billed. After reviewing those entries highlighted by Defendant, the Court does not find them to be clerical in nature. They involve document review, correspondence with counsel, and motion practice. Thus, they are properly compensable entries which the Court credits.

Seventh, Defendant challenges the $2,175 in anticipated attorney's fees with respect to the present motion, including reviewing Defendant's opposition and drafting a reply. However, based on Defendant's fervent opposition, such fees are reasonable. Counsel compiled evidence to support their fee claims, carefully drafted the initial motion, and drafted a very detailed reply addressing every challenge made by Defendant to the fee motion. Thus, these hours are properly justified as well.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $30,822 in fees ([adjusted fee request of $33,256 - [$4,609 from MTCF] + [$2,175 fees related to reply and hearing] = $30,822).

Counsel is not entitled to a negative fee multiplier. Defendant seeks an undefined negative lodestar multiplier. Counsel bases this on the simplicity of the present case and the ability of Plaintiff's attorneys to simultaneously prosecute other cases. However, while the present action is a highly formulaic Song-Beverly case, it is not so simple as to warrant a negative multiplier. This is particularly true when taking into account Defendant's own litigation efforts in this matter. Thus, the Court does not impose a negative multiplier.

Defendant does not challenge the $3,799.24 Plaintiff claims in costs. Thus, the Court awards Plaintiff $34,621 in attorney's fees and costs ([$30,822 in attorney's fees] + [3,799.24 in costs] = $34,621.24).

Conclusion: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion in the partial amount of $34,621.24.

AMEND COMPLAINT

The Court tenders the following decision in the matter Francisco Guevara v. Servicon Systems, Inc., et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV24968, set for hearing on September 9, 2026. Francisco Guevara (Plaintiff) moves for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) in this matter. Servicon Systems, Inc. (Defendant) opposes the motion. 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 him leave to file an FAC clarifying and expanding the factual allegations supporting his existing claims and adding additional wage-and-hour related causes of action. (Guzman Decl. P. 9, Ex. B.) 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). He 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 Plaintiff initially sought a stipulation to amend his complaint in February 2026. (Id. P.P. 8, 10-11.) Thus, Plaintiff's motion is procedurally proper.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's motion is not in compliance with the Rules of Court because he fails to state what allegations are being added or deleted. However, Plaintiff specifically identifies all the proposed changes on pages 8 and 9 of his motion. Defendant additionally argues that the proposed amendment does not relate to the facts just discovered. But Plaintiff's counsel asserts otherwise, testifying that at the beginning of 2026 Plaintiff received additional information from Defendant relevant to the nature and scope of his claims. (Id. P. 11.) After further investigation, Plaintiff determined that the present amendment was necessary. (Ibid.) Such testimony is sufficient to establish that the new allegations are related to those recently discovered facts. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted. C.

Conclusion

The Court grants the motion. | Home -->)" -->