Brilliant vs. General Motors, LLC

Cross-Complainants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)

Collins has met her initial burden establishing the elements of intentional misrepresentation, concealment, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et. seq. and declaratory relief. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; see also Lazar v. Superior Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [elements of fraud]; Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40 [elements of concealment]; Smith v. State Farm (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 718 [a claim under Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200 borrows actionable conduct and makes it independently actionable]; Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060 [declaratory relief]; Cross- Complainants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 1-22.) The burden shifted to Cross- Defendants, but Cross-Defendants failed to oppose the motion and/or meet their shifted burden to show any material triable issue.

Miramar failed to meet its initial burden showing it suffered any damages or has standing to seek declaratory relief relating to the promissory note. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Cross-Complainants shall submit a proposed judgment within 5 days.

Cross-Complainants shall give notice.

304 Brilliant vs. Before the court is a motion for attorney fees and General Motors, costs (Motion) filed by plaintiff Steven L. Brilliant LLC (Plaintiff). The Motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action after settling defendant General Motors, LLC (Defendant). Pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivisions (d) and (e), as the prevailing party on a

lemon law matter, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 998.) Plaintiff’s counsel requests $64,192.50 in attorney fees, plus a 1.2 multiple thereon for an additional $12,838.50 in fees, for a total of $77,031 in attorney fees.

The court, having reviewed the billing entries provided by Plaintiff’s counsel finds the $675/hr. is high, but still within the reasonable range. The hours billed are excessive. The court reviewed the billing entries and found at least 32.3 hours ($21,802.50) of time appear to be excessive. Examples are using identical discovery and other pleadings which were used in other cases by just changing the name of the case, yet billing 0.3-0.6, and repeat or similar billing for things that should reasonably not take the length of time that was billed.

Anticipated hours for a reply were also struck since that pleading was not filed. Given how uncomplicated this matter was and how little was filed with the court, the court finds a reasonable number of hours to be 62.8. (PCLM Group, Inc. vs. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094-1096.) The total attorney fee award is: $675/hr. x 62.8 hrs. = $42,390. The request for a multiplier is denied because this was not a complicated matter and counsel reasonably spent on average approximately five hours per month on this case.

The request for costs totaling $675.40 is granted as Plaintiff produced evidence supporting those costs and the only items objected to by Defendant are permissible. (Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5, subds. (a)(4), (14).)

The total sum of attorney fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff against Defendant is: $42,390 + $675.40 = $43,065.40.

The court continues the OSC re: dismissal on settled case from 6/8/26 to 7/20/26. Once the fees are paid, plaintiff shall file a request for dismissal with prejudice at least 5 court days before the next hearing to take the matter off calendar.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

305 The Learning Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Learning Light Light Foundation, Inc.’s motion to continue trial is Foundation, Inc. DENIED. vs. City of Anaheim While Cross-Defendant contends a trial continuance is necessary due to the unavailability of counsel Ernie Zachary Park (Park), Cross- Defendant has since filed a substitution of attorney replacing Park with new counsel. (ROA 352.) The motion is therefore moot.

The motions to be relieved as counsel set fir 8/24/26 and 8/31/26 are vacated as MOOT given the recent substitutions of counsel. (ROA 352, 353.)

Cross-Complainant shall give notice.

306 Rodriguez vs. The Motion to Vacate Judgment, etc., filed on Parker 2/19/26 by Plaintiff Steven Lee Rodriguez (Plaintiff), is DENIED.

The Motion was not properly served on counsel for Defendant Nili N. Alai, M.D. Inc. (Alai). As of 2/18/26, new counsel had substituted in for Alai, yet Plaintiff served only Alai’s prior counsel.

The Motion also exceeds the 15-page limit (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d)), and cites to unpublished authority in violation of court rules (California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a)).

The Motion also fails as the Opposition has presented evidence to show that although the