PATTERSON VS FAMILY HEALTH & SUPPORT NETWORK, INC

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME PATTERSON VS FAMILY MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CVPS2301768 HEALTH & SUPPORT COUNSEL NETWORK, INC Tentative Ruling: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Darelyn Patterson GRANTED.

Motion to withdraw as attorney of record granted upon compliance with CRC Rule 3.1362(e). Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff, effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed court order upon the client. Jury Trial set for 6.05.26 converted to Trial Setting Conference and Status Hearing re representation for Plaintiff.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES BY TORAL VS GENERAL CVPS2505603 ANGEL TORAL, YANELYS PALMER MOTORS LLC RODRIGUEZ Tentative Ruling: Under Civil Code § 1794(d) (Song-Beverly), “[i]f the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court 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.”

The parties settled at mediation. The settlement agreement states: “[r]easonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code shall be determined by the court by way of noticed motion. Defendant agrees Plaintiffs are the prevailing party for purposes of said fee motion.” (Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Nicholas M. Dillavoy.)

The matter of reasonableness of a party's attorney's fees is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. (Bruckman v. Parliament Escrow Co. (1989) 190 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1062.)

Courts generally consider several factors in determining the reasonableness of a party's attorney's fees. These include "the nature of the litigation, the difficulty of the litigation, the attention given to the issues, the success of the attorney's efforts, and time consumed. [Citation omitted.]” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 693, 708.)

Although a fee request ordinarily should be documented in great detail, the court is entitled to make its own evaluation of the reasonable worth of the work done in light of the nature of the case and the credibility of counsel’s declaration, unsubstantiated by time records and billing statements. (See Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1587; see also Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1394.)

Specifically, in exercising its discretion, the Court may consider all facts and the entire procedural history of the case in setting the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award. (Bernardi, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1394.)

Lodestar is the objective starting point to determine if attorney’s fees are reasonable. (Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1242.) Lodestar is