Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded of $14,689 in attorney fees and costs in the amount of $1,125.24.
Standard
“If a 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).) The buyer has the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation and were reasonable in amount. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817.) A reasonable hourly rate is determined by the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and expertise in the relevant community. (See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)
“A trial court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney fees, but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” (Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271, italics omitted.) In evaluating whether the attorney fee request is reasonable, the trial court should consider “ ‘whether the case was overstaffed, how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended.’ ” (Ibid.) “A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether. ‘If . . . the Court were required to award a reasonable fee when an outrageously unreasonable one has been asked for, claimants would be encouraged to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be a reduction of their fee to what they should have asked for in the first place.
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?”
To
discourage such greed, a severer reaction is needful . . . .’” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 [citation omitted].)
Discussion
This was a straightforward lemon law case with no novel issues. The case was settled early in the proceedings without a trial and with only limited discovery. There were no contested court hearings. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was the prevailing party and he now seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $25,498.24. Defendant opposes the request contending it should be denied or reduced. Defendant argues that the claimed billing rates are excessive and that the request seeks compensation for inefficient and duplicative work.
After reviewing the submissions, the Court finds the fee request unreasonable and reduces it accordingly. First, the Court finds that the requested attorney rates of $745 for Mr. Dillavou and $945 for Mr. Jacobs are unreasonable. In the Court’s experience, the proposed rates exceed the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and expertise for such a simple case. Instead, the Court sets a reasonable rate of $550 per hour for both attorneys. This decrease in the hourly rate results in a reduction of $2,709 from the requested lodestar. On the other hand, the Court finds that the requested rate of $250 an hour for paralegals, although at the high end, falls within the range of reasonableness for such work.
Defendant argues that the request is also unreasonable because the time entries demonstrate duplicative or inefficient work carried out by multiple legal professionals over a brief period of litigation. “[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) Defendant has carried its burden to point to entries that are duplicative or inefficient by providing a declaration itemizing challenged billing entries. (See Declaration of Michelle M. Velazquez, Exhibit A.)
“Plainly, it is appropriate for a trial court to reduce a fee award based on its reasonable determination that a routine, noncomplex case was overstaffed to a degree that significant inefficiencies and inflated fees resulted.” (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 39.) Having reviewed Defendant’s analysis (the entries marked in red, purple and yellow in Exhibit A), the Court agrees that approximately 13 hours of paralegal time should be removed because it was inefficient, duplicative, or of a clerical nature that should not be reimbursed as the work of legal professionals. The Court therefore imposes a reduction in the amount of $3,250.
Plaintiff also requests attorney’s fees for an additional five hours he anticipates he will spend preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion. The request is unreasonable and the Court therefore deducts $3,725 from the request.
With these reductions, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $14,689 in attorney fees and costs in the amount of $1,125.24.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for June, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1605267272?pwd=908CbP6TV2mhCAyai1nzo6lyz2dKaw.1
Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov