Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs
well within the context of the Song-Beverly Act. Dhital held that the economic loss rule does not bar claims for fraudulent inducement, including, as alleged here, through fraudulent concealment. (Id., p. 843.)
Accordingly, the demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.
The case management conference is continued to October 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.
51. Gip v. Plaintiff Logan Tu Gip’s motion for attorney fees and costs is General GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (b) [prevailing Motors LLC party entitlement to costs generally], 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B) [recoverable costs may include attorney fees 2025- pursuant to statute; Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d) [prevailing 01484462 party in Song-Beverly action entitled to reasonable fees/costs].)
Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $11,925.00, which amount the court finds was reasonably and necessarily incurred. The court has reduced the fees sought based on a reduced paralegal hourly rate, fees incurred for clerical tasks, and excessive fees claimed for the fee motion itself that did not occur; however, the court finds that the attorney’s hourly rates appear proper. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [reasonable hourly rate “is that prevailing in the community for similar work”]; Syers Properties III, Inc. v.
Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700 [“determination of the ‘market rate’ is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located”]; Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 883, 899 [“a trial court has its own expertise in the value of legal services performed in a case ... and it may rely on its own familiarity with the local legal market in setting the hourly rate”].)
Plaintiff’s request for a “Lodestar Enhancement,” presumably a multiplier, is DENIED. This appears to be a routine lemon law case, with no unusual facts or novel legal issues requiring exceptional skill. (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 248, citing Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 322, fn. 12 [multiplier factors].)
Plaintiff’s request for $835.55 in costs is also DENIED. Plaintiff has already filed a Memorandum of Costs for this amount. (ROA 24.) Defendant did not seek to strike or tax that memorandum. Thus, this separate request for costs is duplicative.
The court orders this settled case dismissed, without prejudice with the court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.4.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
52. Sehgal v. Defendants Gokal Law Group, Inc. Abbas K. Gokal and Alison Gokal Law S. Gokal’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. (Code Group, Inc. Civ. Proc. §1281.2.) Plaintiffs Arunpal Sehgal, MD, Gurkipal Singh Segal, MD, and Paramjot Mann, MD shall submit their 2026- claims to binding arbitration before JAMS in accordance with 01546794 the agreement to arbitrate.
Defendants have met their burden to demonstrate the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate that covers Plaintiffs’ claims. Specifically, Defendants point to an agreement to arbitrate contained in the agreements for legal services entered into between Gokal Law Group, Inc. and Plaintiffs. The arbitration agreement provides:
11. ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES. THE FIRM APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS THE CLIENT’S ATTORNEY AND ANTICIPATE A PRODUCTIVE, HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP.
IF ANY DISPUTE ARISES BETWEEN CLIENT AND/OR THE FIRM REGARDING SERVICES OR BILLINGS OR ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS OR DUTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE OR MALPRACTICE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE FIRM TO THE CLIENT, SUCH DISPUTE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE A RETIRED JUDGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF JAMS, THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER ARBITRATION FORUM AGREED TO BY THE CLIENT, AND THE FIRM.
ANY FEE DISPUTES SHALL BE ARBITRATED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OR LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, THEN IN EFFECT.
ANY OTHER DISPUTE SHALL BE ARBITRATED ACCORDING TO THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, THEN IN EFFECT; AND IF THERE ARE NO
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”