Antunez vs. General Motors LLC

To the extent Defendant Bivens argues that she is entitled to discretionary preference due to her age, based on the evidence presented, the court does not find that the interests of justice will be served by granting a discretionary trial preference.

Plaintiff to give notice.

8 Antunez vs. Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses General Motors LLC The court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs TOMAS ANTUNEZ and VERONICA SANCHEZ’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute that the motion is timely brought or that Plaintiffs are entitled to fees. The parties dispute the amount of fees sought. Plaintiff seeks fees in the total amount of $27,258.00 and costs in the total amount of $1,714.61. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees. Rather, Defendant disputes the reasonableness of the amount claimed.

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.).

Plaintiffs’ counsel M. NICHOLAS NITA declares that his hourly rate is $625. (Nita Decl., ¶ 24.)

In support of Plaintiffs’ contention that Nita’s rates are reasonable, Nita includes prior court decisions wherein his rates of up to $575 in 2024 (LASC) and 2026 (LASC) were found to be reasonable. (Nita Decl., ¶¶ 81, 82). Nita also

includes information from the 2023 Real Rate Report published by Wolters Kluwer which reported that the mean rate for a partner in California in 2023 was higher than his current rate. (Nita Decl., ¶ 84.)

The court finds that Nita’s rates are reasonable here.

“[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.”].) The court will reduce the hours it determines were excessive or not supported. (See Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 816).

Here, Nita attaches the billing records to his declaration.

In challenging attorney fees as excessive, “it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)

Here, Defendant challenges various time entries by Plaintiffs’ counsel (See Opp’n, pp. 4-6). The court makes the following deductions:

- Prepared Lemon Law Representation Agreement ($60) - Intake call with client; obtained initial information on the vehicle and vehicle’s problems (.3/$45 [work was not done by attorney or paralegal]) - Sent initial email to client to send the vehicle’s documents and supporting evidence (.1/$15 [work was not done by attorney or paralegal])

- Met with client at the office. Created file and made copies of client’s documents, repair history, sales documents, purchase contract (.4/$80 [work was not done by attorney or paralegal]) - Prepared Lemon Law Representation Agreement (.3/$60 [work was not done by attorney or paralegal]) - Communication with client (.1/$20 [work was not done by attorney or paralegal]) - 3 hours from the Motion for attorney fees ($1,875). - $3,935.50 in clerical error billing (July 25, August 7, 8, and 19, 2025 entries billing $625 for.1 communications. Plaintiff failed to address this discrepancy in the Reply.)

Re Costs

Plaintiffs seek to recover $1,714.61 in costs. Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs on 3/27/26, concurrently with this motion.

Defendant did not file a motion to tax costs within 15 days + 2 court days after service of the cost memorandum. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1700(b)(1). Further, the cost items at issue are recoverable as reasonable costs and expenses. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a).)

In sum, the court awards Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $21,167.50 and awards costs in the total amount of $1,714.61.

Plaintiff to give notice.

OSC re Dismissal on Settled Case

The court resets the Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal on Settled Case to 2/1/27 at 9:00 AM in this department. No appearance is necessary if dismissal of entire action is filed and entered with the court. If dismissal of entire action is not entered, all counsel of record are to appear. Failure to appear will result in court dismissal of entire action.

Plaintiff SHALL file and serve a status report no later than 10 court days before the hearing.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

9 Pena vs. American Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Honda Motor Co., Inc. The court GRANTS in part Plaintiff CASPAR A. PENA’s motion for attorney’s fees.

As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute that the motion is timely brought or that Plaintiff is entitled to fees. The parties dispute the amount of fees sought. Plaintiff seeks fees in the total amount of $29,748.75. Defendant opposes the motion, requesting the court exercise its discretion to disallow fees altogether or alternatively, to greatly reduce counsel’s requested attorney’s fees to “at most” $4,165.00.

“In evaluating whether the attorney fee request is reasonable, the trial court should consider ‘“ whether the case was overstaffed, how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended.’” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38.) “‘Reasonable compensation does not include compensation for ‘“padding” in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts....’ [Citations.] “A reduced award might be fully justified by a general observation that an attorney overlitigated a case or submitted a padded bill or that the opposing party has stated valid objections.”’” (Ibid.)

“[V]erified 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.)

In support of the hourly rates claimed by each attorney who worked on this matter, Plaintiff’s counsel includes what seems to be a running tally of cases up to and including June 2026, where Plaintiff’s counsel received

13