Ramos vs. Fan
Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
7 Phillips vs. Newport-Mesa School District
2025-01474929 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Continued to 07/13/2026 8 Pooph, Inc. vs. ONM Environmental, Inc.
2025-01511009 1. Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings 2. Case Management Conference
Off Calendar 9 Ramirez vs. Goering
2025-01479940 Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Moot – Second Amended Complaint filed 05/12/2026 10 Ramos vs. Fan
2024-01371487 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Off Calendar 11 Rivera vs. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
2024-01374210 Motion for Attorney Fees
Plaintiff Brisa Rivera’s motion for attorney fees against Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is granted in part as set forth below.
Plaintiff is awarded fees in the total amount of $33,678.55.
On 5/6/25, Defendant served a CCP 998 offer to Plaintiff in the amount of $25,000 for a repurchase, plus attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses by motion, which Plaintiff accepted. (Jiang Decl., ¶ 27, Ex. 1.) Defendant agreed in the 998 Offer that Plaintiff is the “prevailing party” for purposes of a fee motion. (Id.)
In Plaintiff’s motion/reply brief, she seeks a total of $38,550.35 in fees.
It is within the court’s discretion to decide which of the hours expended by the attorneys were “reasonably spent” on the litigation. (Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 449.) Additionally, a trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees, as an experienced trial judge is in the best position to decide [the] value of professional services rendered in court. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”