Banuelos v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc

cause of action. However, trial is not until August and Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s intention to add a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress back in February. None of Defendant’s reasons for denying the motion cannot be alleviated through other means beyond denying the motion. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

6. SCV-272535, Banuelos v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc

Plaintiff Luis Banuelos (“Plaintiff”) moves for an award of attorney fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff seeks $21,312.50 in attorney fees plus a multiplier of 1.5 in the amount of $10,656.25, for a total fee award of $31,968.75. Plaintiff also requests reimbursement for costs and expenses in the amount of $6,255.49. The motion is GRANTED, with the modification that this court will grant a modifier of 1.1, for a total attorney fee award of $23,443.75.

1. Litigation and Settlement Plaintiff filed this action on January 31, 2023, against Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging the violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act based upon Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2021 Honda Passport for $21,850.39. On August 21, 2025, the parties settled the matter with Defendant agreeing to pay Plaintiff $58,536.00. (Kirnos decl., ¶14.) As part of the settlement agreement Defendant agreed to pay reasonable attorney fees to be determined by the parties or this motion. (Kirnos decl., Exhibit C., ¶2.) For the purposes of the attorney fee motion, the parties agreed Plaintiff is the prevailing party. (Ibid.)

2. Attorney Fees - Civil Code section 1794(d) “If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civ. Code, § 1794(d).) A court exercises its discretion to determine the amount of attorney fees reasonably incurred. (Serrano v.

Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 50.) Plaintiff’s counsel utilized nine attorneys and one paralegal on this case. (Kirnos decl., Exhibit A.) The attorneys billed hourly rates from $375 to $575. (Ibid.) The paralegal was billed at $145 per hour. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the use of multiple attorneys in lemon law cases is beneficial as each attorney specializes in certain stages of litigation. Each attorney’s experience in particular niches relating to the Song-Beverly Act allows attorneys to spend less time on each case.

The invoices provided support this explanation. The time spent on each task is within reason and the tasks performed appear reasonably necessary to the litigation. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel did not bill for some meetings between counsel and/or staff.

3. Fee Enhancement A fee enhancement or multiplier is applicable to an attorney fee award under Civil Code section 1794(d). (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 819-821.) A touchstone or lodestar figure based on a careful compilation of the actual time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney may then be augmented or diminished by taking various relevant factors into account, including (1) the novelty and difficulty 11

of the questions involved and the skill displayed in presenting them; (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; and (3) the contingent nature of the fee award, based on the uncertainty of prevailing on the merits and of establishing eligibility for the award. (Id. at p. 819.) The initial lodestar amount is based on the reasonable rate for noncontingent litigation of the same type, which amount may then be enhanced to account for factors such as the contingent nature of the case: “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action.

In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services.” (Id., citing Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, at 1132.) Plaintiff requests a fee enhancement of 1.5 which amounts to $10,656.25. This request is based upon the contingency nature of the case and the inherent risk that Plaintiff may not prevail, and her attorneys would not get paid.

The Court determines that a 1.1 multiplier is reasonable in this case. The parties settled the case before trial, and this multiplier adequately compensates Plaintiff for the risk involved.

4. Costs and Expenses Civil Code section 1794(d) allows for recovery of costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the litigation. Plaintiff reasonably incurred $6,255.49 litigating this case. (Kirnos decl., Exhibit B.)

5. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $23,443.75 in attorney fees and $6,255.49 costs and expenses, for a total of $29,699.24. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

12