CALVIN JENN ET AL VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24614316 - June 3, 2025 Hearing date: June 3, 2025 Case number: CGC24614316 Case title: CALVIN JENN ET AL VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24614316 | Case Title: | | CALVIN JENN ET AL VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-03 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Payment Of Attorney'S Fees And Reimbursement Of Costs And Expenses | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 03, 2025, Line 8, PLAINTIFF CALVIN JENN, FUSAMI JENN's Motion For Payment Of Attorney's Fees And Reimbursement Of Costs And Expenses. (Part 1 of 2).

Plaintiffs Calvin Jenn and Fusami Jenn's Motion For Payment Of Attorney's Fees And Reimbursement Of Costs And Expenses is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs sued Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The parties settled the dispute and deferred the issues of fees and costs for adjudication by the court. In the settlement agreement, Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party pursuant to Civ. Code Section 1794(d). Defendant agrees to pay attorney's fees "in an amount determined by the Court by way of noticed motion to have been reasonably incurred by [P]laintiffs in the commencement and prosecution of this action." (Sann Decl., 27-28, ex. G.) Now, Plaintiffs seek attorney's fees in the amount of $24,739.50, and costs in the amount of $508.28.

Civil Code 1794(d) authorizes the prevailing buyer in a Song Beverly Act lawsuit to recover as part of the judgment "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."

Generally, an attorney's fees award is calculated based on a lodestar calculation, which involves multiplying the reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably and necessarily spent on the matter. "The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work." (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) Also relevant, however, are "'the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney's reputation, and the undesirability of the case.'" (Margolin v. Regional Planning Comm. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003-1004