Motion for attorney fees and costs
proposed pleading Defendant has attached the proposed pleading to the moving moving papers. papers.
However, defendant must electronically file the cross- However, cross- complaint separately separately with the clerk’s clerk’s office so that there there is a a record of the proper record pleading. Defendant the pleading. Defendant shall shall separately separately file the within three the cross-complaint within days. three days.
shall give notice of this ruling. Defendant shall ruling.
58. 58. v. Ray v. Plaintiff Adam Ray’s Ray’s motion motion for attorney fees and and costs is General General GRANTED. (Code Civ. GRANTED. Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ §§ 1032, 1032, subd. subd. (b) (b) [prevailing [prevailing Motors, LLC Motors, entitlement to costs generally], party entitlement generally], 1033.5, 1033.5, subd. subd. (a)(10)(B) [recoverable (a)(10)(B) [recoverable costs may include include attorney attorney fees 2023- 2023- pursuant to statute; statute; Civ. Civ. Code, § § 1794, 1794, subd. subd. (d) (d) [prevailing [prevailing 01318172 01318172 in Song-Beverly action party in action entitled entitled to reasonable fees/costs].) fees/costs].)
Plaintiff is Plaintiff is awarded awarded attorney attorney fees fees in in the the amount amount ofof which amount the court finds was reasonably and $13,793.00, which and incurred. The court has reduced necessarily incurred. reduced the fees sought based on based on excessive excessive fees fees claimed claimed for for aa motion motion to to compel, compel, and and based on based on hours hours solely solely related related to to the fraud claim the fraud claim (which (which is is not not awarded within the statutory mandate under which Plaintiff is awarded fees). fees).
The court finds that thethe attorney’s attorney’s hourly rates appear proper. proper. (PLCM Group, (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler Inc. v. Drexler (2000) (2000) 22 22 Cal.4th Cal.4th 1084, 1084, 1095 1095 [reasonable [reasonable hourly rate ““is is that prevailing prevailing in in the community for similar work”]; work”]; Syers Properties III, III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) Inc. v. 226 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 691, 700 [“determination [“determination of the ‘ ‘market market rate’ rate’ is generally is generally based based on on the the rates rates prevalent prevalent in in the the community community where the court is located”]; located”]; Nishiki Nishiki v. v.
Danko Danko Meredith, Meredith, APCAPC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 883, 899 [“a trial court has its own [“a trial expertise inin the value of legal the value legal services performed in in a a case ... ... and it and it may may rely rely on on its its own own familiarity familiarity with with the the local local legal legal market inin setting the hourly rate”].) setting the rate”].)
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?”
Plaintiff’s Plaintiff's request for a multiplier is DENIED. DENIED. This appears to routine lemon be a routine lemon law case, with with no no unusual unusual facts or novel novel legal issues legal issues requiring requiring exceptional exceptional skill. skill. (Mikhaeilpoor (Mikhaeilpoor v. v. BMW BMW of North of North America, LLC (2020) America, LLC (2020) 48 48 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 240, 240, 248, 248, citing citing Press v.v. Lucky Stores, Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d Inc. (1983) Cal.3d 311, 322, fn. fn. 12 12 factors].) [multiplier factors].)
Plaintiff’s Plaintiff's request for $1,844.12 in costs is also GRANTED. GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Plaintiff's evidentiary objections objections to Defendant’s Defendant’s declaration declaration are OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
The court orders this settled settled case dismissed, dismissed, without prejudice prejudice with the court retaining jurisdiction with § 664.4. jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.4.