Motion for attorney fees and costs
within the well within the context of the Song-Beverly Act. Dhita/ held Act. Dhital that the economic that the economic loss loss rule rule does does not not bar bar claims claims for for fraudulent fraudulent inducement, including, inducement, including, as alleged alleged here, here, through fraudulent concealment. (Id., concealment. (Id., p. p. 843.) 843.)
Accordingly, Accordingly, the on this ground the demurrer on ground is OVERRULED. OVERRULED.
continued to October 12, The case management conference is continued 12, a.m. in 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. C28.
shall give notice of this ruling. Defendant shall ruling.
51. 51. v. Gip v. Logan Tu Plaintiff Logan Gip’s motion for attorney Tu Gip’s attorney fees and costs is General General GRANTED. (Code Civ. GRANTED. Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ §§ 1032, 1032, subd. subd. (b) (b) [prevailing [prevailing Motors LLC Motors LLC 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 2025- 2025- pursuant to statute; Civ. to statute; Civ. Code, § § 1794, 1794, subd. subd. (d) (d) [prevailing [prevailing 01484462 01484462 party in party in Song-Beverly Song-Beverly action action entitled entitled to to reasonable reasonable fees/costs].) fees/costs].)
awarded attorney Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $11,925.00, whichwhich amount the court finds was reasonably and and necessarily incurred. necessarily incurred. The court has The court has reduced reduced the fees sought the fees sought based on based on aa reduced reduced paralegal paralegal hourly hourly rate, rate, fees fees incurred incurred for for clerical tasks, and clerical tasks, and excessive fees claimed claimed for the fee motion occur; however, itself that did not occur; however, the court finds that the attorney’s attorney’s hourly rates appear proper. proper. (PLCM (PLCM Group, Group, Inc.
Inc. v. v. Drexler (2000) Drexler (2000) 22 22 Cal.4th Cal.4th 1084, 1084, 1095 1095 [reasonable [reasonable hourly hourly rate rate ““is is that prevailing prevailing in the community for similar work”]; in the work"]; Syers Properties III, III, Inc. Inc. v.v. Rankin (2014) (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700 [“determination (“determination of the ‘ ‘market market rate’ rate’ is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located”]; in the located”]; Nishiki v. Nishiki v.
Danko Danko Meredith, Meredith, APC (2018) 25 APC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 883, 883, 899 [“a [“a trial court has its own own expertise in in the value value of legal legal performed in services performed in a a case ... ... and it may rely on its own familiarity with familiarity with the the local local legal legal market market in in setting setting the the hourly hourly rate”].) 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 ““Lodestar Lodestar Enhancement,” Enhancement,” presumably presumably a a multiplier, is DENIED. multiplier, DENIED. This appears to be a routine lemon lemon law case, with case, with no no unusual unusual facts facts or or novel novel legal legal issues issues requiring requiring exceptional skill. exceptional skill. (Mikhaeilpoor (Mikhaeilpoor v. v. BMW BMW ofof North North America, LLC America, LLC Cal.App.5th 240, 248, citing (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th citing Press v. v. Lucky Stores, Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d Inc. (1983) Cal.3d 311, 322, fn. fn. 12 12 [multiplier factors].) factors].)
Plaintiff’s Plaintiff's request for $835.55 $835.55 in costs is also DENIED. DENIED. Plaintiff has Plaintiff has already already filed filed aa Memorandum Memorandum of of Costs Costs for for this this amount. (ROA amount. (ROA 24.) 24.) Defendant Defendant did did not not seek seek to to strike strike or or tax tax that memorandum. memorandum. Thus, this separate request for costs is duplicative. duplicative.
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.
shall give notice of this ruling. Plaintiff shall ruling.
52.
52. Sehgal v. Sehgal v. Group, Inc. Defendants Gokal Law Group, Inc. Abbas K. K. Gokal Gokal and and Alison Alison Gokal Law Gokal Law S. S. Gokal’s Gokal’s Motion Motion to Compel Compel Arbitration Arbitration is GRANTED. GRANTED. (Code Group, Inc. Group, Inc. Civ. Proc. Civ. Proc. §1281.2.) §1281.2.) Plaintiffs Arunpal Arunpal Sehgal, Sehgal, MD, MD, Gurkipal Singh Segal, Singh Segal, MD, MD, and Paramjot Mann, Mann, MD MD shall shall submit their 2026- 2026- binding arbitration before JAMS in claims to binding in accordance with with 01546794 01546794 arbitrate. the agreement to arbitrate.
Defendants have Defendants have met met their their burden burden to to demonstrate demonstrate the the existence of a existence a valid valid agreement to arbitrate that covers Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ claims. claims. Specifically, Specifically, Defendants Defendants point to an an contained in the agreements for legal agreement to arbitrate contained between Gokal services entered into between Gokal Law Group, Group, Inc. Inc. and Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs. arbitration agreement The arbitration agreement provides: provides:
11. ARBITRATION 11. ARBITRATION OFOF DISPUTES. DISPUTES. THE FIRM THE FIRM APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS TO SERVE AS THE CLIENT’S CLIENT’S ATTORNEY AND ANTICIPATE ANTICIPATE A PRODUCTIVE, HARMONIOUS PRODUCTIVE, HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP. RELATIONSHIP.
IF ANY IF DISPUTE ARISES ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN CLIENT ARISES BETWEEN CLIENT AND/OR THE FIRM AND/OR THE FIRM REGARDING REGARDING SERVICES SERVICES OR BILLINGS OR BILLINGS OR OR ANY OTHER MATTER ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO RELATING THE PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OR OR DUTIES DUTIES UNDER THIS UNDER AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT BUT NOT LIMITED NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS OF TO, CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE NEGLIGENCE OR MALPRACTICE OR MALPRACTICE ARISING ARISING OUT OUT OF OF OR OR RELATING TO RELATING THE LEGAL TO THE LEGAL SERVICES SERVICES PROVIDED BY PROVIDED BY THE THE FIRM FIRM TO TO THE THE CLIENT, CLIENT, SUCH DISPUTE SUCH DISPUTE SHALL SHALL BE BE SUBMITTED SUBMITTED TOTO BINDING ARBITRATION, BINDING CONDUCTED IN ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED IN ORANGE COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE BEFORE A A RETIRED JUDGE RETIRED JUDGE ININ ACCORDANCE WITH ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE RULES OF JAMS, JAMS, THE THE AMERICAN AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, OR ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, OR ANY ANY OTHER ARBITRATION OTHER ARBITRATION FORUM FORUM AGREED AGREED TOTO BY THE BY THE CLIENT, CLIENT, AND AND THE THE FIRM. FIRM.
ANY FEE DISPUTES ANY FEE DISPUTES SHALL SHALL BE BE ARBITRATED ARBITRATED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE ADOPTED BY STATE BAR THE STATE BAR OF OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA OR LOCAL OR LOCAL BAR BAR ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION, IF IF ANY, ANY, THEN THEN IN IN EFFECT. EFFECT.
ANY OTHER DISPUTE ANY OTHER DISPUTE SHALL SHALL BE BE ARBITRATED ARBITRATED ACCORDING ACCORDING TOTO THE THE ARBITRATION RULES OF ARBITRATION RULES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY THE ORANGE COUNTY BAR BAR ASSOCIATION, IF ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, THEN IN ANY, THEN IN EFFECT; EFFECT; AND AND IF IF THERE THERE ARE NO ARE NO