Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Legal Standard

“The Song-Beverly Act includes a fee-shifting provision allowing the prevailing buyers to recover attorney fees under [Civil Code] section 1794.” (Reynolds v. Ford Motor Co. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1111.) It is undisputed that the Lozas are the prevailing buyers for purposes of section 1794.

California “appellate courts have unanimously concluded the lodestar adjustment method of calculating attorney fees is appropriate” in awarding attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Act. (Reynolds v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 1112.) “A trial court assessing attorney fees using the lodestar adjustment method begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in presentation of the case.” (Ibid. [quotation marks omitted]; see also id. at p. 1113 [“[T]he trial court is explicitly and only tasked under section 1794 with calculating attorney fees based on actual hours expended that were reasonably incurred for the particular litigation.”]; accord Mikhaeilpoor v.

BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 [“Under the lodestar adjustment methodology, the trial court must initially determine the actual time expended and then ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended and the monetary charge being made for the time expended are reasonable.”] [quotation marks omitted].) “If the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended are not reasonable under all the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Morris v.

Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 34.) The party moving for statutory attorney fees has the burden of proof. (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.

“[C]ounsels’ time records [are] the starting point for [the trial court’s] lodestar determination.” (Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397.) However, “the lodestar method vests the trial court with discretion to decide which of the hours expended by the attorneys were ‘reasonably spent’ on the litigation.” (Meister v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 449.) “A trial court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney fees, but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” (Donahue v.

Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271.) “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, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 38 [quotation marks omitted].) “Reasonable compensation does not include compensation for ‘padding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts.” (Ibid. [quotation marks omitted].)

“Reasonable hourly compensation is based on prevailing hourly rates in the community,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

thereby anchoring the calculation to an objective standard.” (Reynolds v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 47 Cal.app.5th at p. 1112 [quotation marks omitted].) “[I]n making its calculation of a reasonable hourly rate, the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (Morris v.

Hyundai Motor America, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 38 [quotation marks and brackets omitted].) “Affidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.)

Once the court has fixed the lodestar as “the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community,” the trial court may increase or decrease the amount by applying a ‘multiplier’ to take into account the novelty and difficulty of the issues, the skill displayed in presenting the issues, and the risk of a contingent fee, among other factors. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

Discussion

Hourly Rates

The Lozas’ counsel provided a spreadsheet of billing records, which the Court has compiled into this table of rates and hours expended on this action:

Name Hours Rate Total Chris Swanson (partner) 6.2 $575 $3,565 Evelina Chang (associate, 4.8 $375 $1,800 in practice since 2017) Elvira Kamosko (associate, 2.0 $295 $590 in practice since 2021) 4.0 $350 $1,400 2.1 $375 $787.50 Harita Nandivada 3.0 $375 $1,125 (associate, in practice since 15.5 $400 $6,200 2021) Keishunn Johnson 6.7 $375 $2,512 (associate, in practice since 2023) Maxwell Kreymer 8.4 $350 $2,940 (associate, in practice since 2020)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

Sundeep Samra (associate, 11.0 $450 $4,950 in practice since 2018) Timothy Lupinek (associate, 0.1 $375 $37.50 in practice since 2021) 12.5 $415 $5,187 7.1 $450 $3,195 14.2 $500 $7,100 Thach Tran (associate, in 0.1 $350 $35 practice since 2016) 3.2 $395 $1,264 1.9 $425 $807.50 0.7 $475 $332.50 Zachary Powell (senior 2.0 $475 $950 attorney) Jonathan Rivera Cruz 4.1 $145 $594.50 (paralegal) Kasey Xicara (paralegal) 9.9 $145 $950

(Plfs’ Decl., ¶¶ 28; id., Exh. A.)[1]

To support the reasonableness of the rates, the Lozas’ counsel provides copies of court orders awarding fees and costs in Lemon Law matters, including from Sacramento County Superior Court and immediately neighboring counties. (See Plfs Decl, ¶ 30; Exhs. V, X, Y, Z, AA, CC, DD, and EE.)[2] Many of these orders relate to cases involving this law firm. The orders tend to show that the prevailing hourly rate for plaintiffs’ attorneys in Lemon Law cases in the Sacramento County community ranges up to $550 per hour.

In opposition, Honda notes that “many of the cases cited [by the Lozas’s counsel] confirm a range of $250 to $400.” (Opp., at p. 7:12–14.) Honda argues that this standard Lemon Law case does not require experienced attorneys with rates towards the top end of the range and suggests that hourly rates of $300 for attorneys and $125 for paralegals is appropriate. (Opp., at p. 7:24–8:1.)

Based on the evidence provided and recent fee orders in Lemon Law cases in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the Court finds the hourly rates to be generally reasonable, with some downward adjustments at the top end of the range. Accordingly, in the Court’s independent judgment, the Court reduces the hourly rates of the following attorneys:  Chris Swanson’s rate is reduced to $550.  Timothy Lupinek’s top two rates are reduced to $425 and $450.  Thach Tran’s top rate is reduced to $450.  Zachary Powell’s rate is reduced to $450.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

Number of Hours

As laid out in the table above, the Lozas’ counsel claim a total 119.5 hours of attorney and paralegal time for legal services. (Plf’s Decl., Exh. A.) The Lozas’ counsel explains the large number of billing staff (ten attorneys and two paralegals) as an efficiency measure that allows attorneys to specialize in different stages of the litigation. (Id., ¶ 18.) Honda argues that the Lozas’ counsel intentionally overstaffed and overbilled. (Opp., at pp. 8:3–9:9.) To support their argument, Honda’s counsel provides their own line-item analysis of the billing spreadsheet. (Def’s Decl., Exh. A.) According to Honda’s analysis, no more than $21,107.50 can be justified. (Opp, at p. 10:11.)

A large number of staff working on a matter is not, in itself, sufficient to indicate bill padding. However, the Court has carefully examined both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s evidence to ensure that the hourly charges were reasonably incurred. The Lozas argue that Honda’s line-item objections are conclusory and “not evidence” (Reply, at p. 6:6– 13), but the Court finds them to be a helpful starting point based on Honda’s counsel “experience litigating these cases.” (Def’s Decl., ¶ 2.) For these purposes, the Court assumes Honda has conceded that any line item to which Honda did not object was reasonably incurred.

The Court does not agree with all of Honda’s objections. In particular, the Court did not determine that all time spent preparing for trial on the date of settlement or that attorney travel was not reasonably incurred. (See Opp., at p. 3:15–16, 3:22–23.) The Court also notes that the Lozas’ counsel identified a number of line items for internal review of documents as “N/C” (apparently “no charge”) and reduced their total claimed lodestar by an amount already paid in sanctions.

Nevertheless, the Court did identify some apparent duplicative work, inappropriate administrative charges, and excessive time spent on templated work product. A substantial number of hours were billed by several attorneys in preparing discovery responses.

In the Court’s independent review of the evidence and arguments, the Court finds the hours claimed to be reasonable when limited as follows:  Chris Swanson: 4.7 hours (reduced by 1.5 hours)  Evelina Chang: 2.2 hours (reduced by 2.6 hours)  Elvira Kamosko: 0.5 hour (reduced by 1.0 hour); 4 hours (no reduction); 2.1 hours (no reduction)  Harita Nandivada: 2.4 hours (reduced by 0.6 hour); 15.5 hours (no reduction)  Keishunn Johnson: 4.6 hours (reduced by 2.1 hours)  Maxwell Kreymer: 6.6 hours (reduced by 1.8 hours)  Sundeep Samra: 9.2 hours (reduced by 1.8 hours)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

 Timothy Lupinek: 0.1 hours (no reduction); 6.2 hours (reduced by 6.3 hours); 5.3 hours (reduced by 1.8 hours); 12 hours (reduced by 2.2 hours)  Thach Tran: 0.1 hours (no reduction); 3.9 hours (no reduction); 0.7 hours (reduced by 0.2 hours); 1.1 hours (no reduction)  Zachary Powell: 2 hours (no reduction)  Jonathan Rivera Cruz: 2.3 hours (reduced by 1.8 hours)  Kasey Xicara: 5.9 hours (reduced by 3.9 hours)

In summary, the Court finds the following hours reasonably incurred at the following rates reasonable in the community:

Name Hours Rate Total Chris Swanson (partner) 4.7 $550 $2,585 Evelina Chang (associate, 2.2 $375 $825 in practice since 2017) Elvira Kamosko (associate, 0.5 $295 $147.50 in practice since 2021) 4.0 $350 $1,400 2.1 $375 $787.50 Harita Nandivada 2.4 $375 $900 (associate, in practice since 15.5 $400 $6,200 2021) Keishunn Johnson 4.6 $375 $1,725 (associate, in practice since 2023) Maxwell Kreymer 6.6 $350 $2,310 (associate, in practice since 2020) Sundeep Samra (associate, 9.2 $450 $4,140 in practice since 2018) Timothy Lupinek (associate, 0.1 $375 $37.50 in practice since 2021) 6.2 $415 $2,573 5.3 $425 $2,252.50 12 $450 $5,400 Thach Tran (associate, in 0.1 $350 $35 practice since 2016) 3.9 $395 $1,540.50 0.7 $425 $297.50 1.1 $450 $495 Zachary Powell (senior 2.0 $450 $900 attorney) Jonathan Rivera Cruz 2.3 $145 $333.50 (paralegal)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

Kasey Xicara (paralegal) 5.9 $145 $855.50

The sum total in attorney fees is $35,740. Subtracting $810 previously paid in sanctions, the attorney fees award is $34,930.

Multiplier

The Lozas’ counsel requests a multiplier of 1.3 based on the contingent risk and delay in payment. (Plf’s Motion, at pp. 12:6–13:14.) The Court finds no basis in the record to justify any multiplier. This action is a garden-variety Lemon Law case, with no unusual facts or novel legal issues and which did not require exceptional skill. A multiplier is not appropriate for contingent risk when the reasonable hourly rate is already commensurate with contingent fee work. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of Cal., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, at 822.) The attorney fees awarded appropriately compensate the Lozas’ counsel at a reasonable hourly rate for the number of hours reasonably spent on this case.

Costs

The Lozas seek a total of $18,169.59 in costs. The Lozas submitted a verified Memorandum of Costs with their moving papers, which breaks down the costs as $855 for filing and motion fees, $150 for jury fees, $3,388.65 for deposition fees, $607.27 for service, $11,935.24 for expert witness fees,[3] $1,168.43 for messenger court filings and service, and $65 for court appearance. (See Memorandum of Costs filed November 21, 2025.) Where, as here, the claimed items appear to be proper charges, a verified Memorandum of Costs is prima facie evidence that the costs listed were necessarily incurred, and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the objecting party. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)

Honda does not challenge these costs in its opposition. Accordingly, the Court finds the amount to be reasonable and awards costs totaling $18,169.59.

Disposition

The Lozas’ motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED. The Lozas are awarded $34,930 in attorney fees and $18,169.59 in costs. The total amount awarded is $53,099.59.

The Lozas’ counsel shall submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling.

[1] The Court’s review of the line-item billing records resulted in slight discrepancies from

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

the table provided by the Lozas’ counsel, in that the Court found Kasey Xicara billed 9.8 hours rather than 9.9 and Thach Tran billed 6.0 hours rather than 5.9 hours. [2] Exhibits CC and EE are summary orders that provide no helpful information on the

face of the documents. [3] Expert witness fees—not normally a recoverable cost under Code of Civil Procedure

section 1033.5—are a recoverable expense in actions under the Song-Beverly Act, when reasonable. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 137–138, disapproved on other grounds by Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 204–205.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329635-CU-BC-GDS: Ashley Loza vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees in Department 16C

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.