CRUZ, EFRAIN ESQUIVEL DE LA vs GUTIERREZ, VELIA

The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

CV-25-000315 - CV-25-000315 - CRUZ, EFRAIN ESQUIVEL DE LA vs GUTIERREZ, VELIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Added Costs - Granted, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled as the prevailing party herein to reasonable attorney fees and court costs herein.(Civil Code Sec. 1780 (a) and (e); Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, C.A.92017, 845 F.3d 916; Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140; Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, C.D.Cal.2010, 796 F.Supp.2d 1160).

The Court on its own motion takes judicial notice of the limited availability of local experienced Consumer attorneys compared to areas of Southern California such as San Diego where Plaintiff's Counsel is located and finds that out of Counsel rates are supported herein. (Nicholas v Taft, (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4 th 1233; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005), 132 Cal.App.4th 359).

Based on Counsel's touted extensive experience and efficiency, the Court finds that the total time expended by Counsel is subject to reduction. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133; Tidrick v. FCA US LLC, (2025)112 Cal. App. 5th 1147).

The Court also finds that court costs, no expert fees are recoverable by a prevailing Plaintiff under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (Civil Code Sec. 1780 (e)).

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff entitled to reasonable attorney fees of $15,285.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order that conforms to the Court's ruling within five court days.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***