Motion for leave to file a cross-complaint
costs on on Plaintiff” Plaintiff” (Opp. (Opp. at p.p. 7)—the 7)—the cost provision provision in the MVOA requires defendant to bear all all costs of arbitration. arbitration. It states: states: ““[Tesla] [Tesla] will will pay all all AAA fees for any arbitration, arbitration, which will will be held held in the city or county of [plaintiff’s] in the [plaintiff's] residence.” residence.” (Kim Decl. (Kim Decl. at Ex.Ex. 1, 1, p. p. 3; 3; Sanders Decl. Decl. at Ex. Ex. 1, 1, p. p. 3.) addressed Plaintiff has not acknowledged or addressed this language in opposition brief, and her opposition and has not shown shown or explained explained how she may have to unique to arbitration under to shoulder any costs unique the the terms of the MVOA. (See Opp., the MVOA.
Opp., inin passim.) passim.) Plaintiff has therefore failed failed to show that the the agreement’s agreement's cost provisions provisions unconscionable. (See Engalla, are substantively unconscionable. Engalla, supra, supra, 15 15 Cal.4th at p. Cal.4th p. 972 [burden]; [burden]; see also City City of of Monterey Monterey v. v. Carrnshimba (2013) Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 1068,1068, 1099 1099 [it [it is not the court’s court’s role to develop a a party’s party’s argument for him]; him]; Cahill v. v.
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Co. (2011) (2011) 194194 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 939, 956 [same]; People [same]; People v. Lee (2008) v. Lee (2008) 161161 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 124,124, 130 130 [“It [“It is not the court’s court’s function function to marshal marshal evidence for the the parties parties or or to make tactical judgments about how the parties should present their arguments.”].) arguments.”].)
Defendant’s Defendant’s request for judicial judicial notice is GRANTED. GRANTED. (See Evid. Evid. Code, §§ 452, Code, 452, subd. subd. (d).) (d).) The case management The case management conference conference is is VACATED. VACATED.
The court ORDERS The court ORDERS this action stayed this action stayed pending pending completion completion of of arbitration or until further order of the court. arbitration court. (Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., § 1281.4.) § 1281.4.)
The court sets The court sets a a status status conference conference regarding regarding the the arbitration arbitration for January for January 22, 22, 2027 2027 at at 9:00 9:00 a.m. a.m. in in Department Department C28. C28. Five Five days before the conference, the scheduled conference, the parties are ordered ordered to submit a joint statement describing describing the status of the arbitration. arbitration.
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?”
shall give notice of this ruling. Defendant shall ruling. 57.
57. Doe 9011 Doe 9011 v. v. Defendant Fullerton Fullerton School District’s District’s unopposed unopposed motion motion for Fullerton Fullerton GRANTED. leave to file a cross-complaint is GRANTED. School School compulsory, and The proposed cross-complaints is compulsory, and is governed governed District District by C.C.P. C.C.P. § § 426.50. 426.50. It provides provides that ““the the court, after notice to 2025- 2025- the adverse party, the adverse party, shall shall grant, grant, upon upon such such terms terms as as may may bebe 01473413 01473413 just just to to the parties, leave the parties, leave to to amend amend thethe pleading, pleading, or or to file the to file the cross-complaint, such cause if the cross-complaint, to assert such the party who failed failed to plead plead the cause acted in good good faith.” faith.”
This provision provision “shall “shall be liberally construed construed to avoid avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” action.”
Here, there Here, is no there is no evidence evidence of of bad bad faith. faith.
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”].)
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.