DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025-01482070·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoOFF CALENDAR

Sundance Air Support, Inc. vs. General Motors, LLC

Motion for Protective Order

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
C11
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSundance Air Support, Inc.
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

The court finds that the hourly rates of $415-$540 per hour for attorneys with 7-13 years of experience, and $210-$215 for paralegals are reasonable.

Based on counsels’ billing statements, the Court finds that $33,678.55 is a reasonable amount of attorney fees in this matter, and awards this amount.

In reaching this number, the Court deducted $697.50 representing time spent on the reply brief in support of this motion, that it found to be excessive.

The Court additionally deducts $1,023.30 time representing paralegal time that is administrative/clerical in nature, and also duplicative of attorney work.

Lastly, the Court deducts $3,151.00 representing entries that are overly vague. The Court cannot evaluate the reasonableness of a billing entry that states only “confer re case,” “email re case,” “call to/from counsel,” etc.

The Court did not deduct any additional fees as it finds that the remainder of the fees incurred were reasonable and necessary to the litigation.

Given that Plaintiff acknowledges she already received payment of costs in the amount of $1,319.69, the request for costs in the motion is denied as moot.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

12 Sundance Air Motion for Protective Order Support, Inc. vs. General Motors, LLC

2025-01482070 Off Calendar

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share