Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Expenses
any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
d) Requests for Admissions Petitioner submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Petitioner states that it propounded requests for admissions on Respondent and received no response. Therefore, Respondent requests that the matters set forth in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)
Accordingly, Petitioner's unopposed request to deem matters admitted is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2033.280(b). The truth of any matters specified in Defendant's Requests for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted, without objection. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(a)??(b).)
Petitioner is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in conjunction with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 2033.280(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $634.50 are awarded against Respondent Dana Garth, payable to Petitioner's counsel of record, Fores Macko Johnston & Chartrand. The Court declines to set a timeline for the payment of sanctions, as that is unnecessary. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, as modified (Dec. 6, 1995) .)
Petitioner's alternative request for an order rendering judgment by default against Respondent and dismissing any objections or cross-petitions is DENIED. That sanction is disproportionately punitive at this stage of the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-24-001829 - DANIELYAN, INESA vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Inesa Danielyan's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Expenses - GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $44,995.72. The Court exercises its discretion in determining what award is justified in this context. (Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5 th 462.)
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?”
Attorney's Fees Hours Reasonably Worked - Regarding the lodestar fees calculation, the Court finds, on the basis of Counsel's declarations and supporting exhibits, including time records, and the Court's own review of the time entries submitted by Plaintiffs' counsel, as well as the Court's experience and general familiarity with the amount of time reasonably allocated to the types of tasks described herein, that the hours claimed were reasonably incurred and substantially contributed to the ultimate successful result. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.)
However, the Court determines that a portion of the time claimed by Plaintiffs' counsel herein should be reduced as follows: 1.2 hours billed by Hovanes Margarian for "communication with defendant" between 3/9/24 and 3/9/25 as improper block billing which does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described 1.5 hours billed by Patrick Kimball for "communication with defendant" between 10/1/24 and 3/5/26 as improper block billing which does not provide sufficient specificity for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the time incurred in relationship to the task(s) described 2.3 hours claimed by Hovanes Margarian in connection with "review" of various documents prepared by other billers in this matter, as duplicative.
6.9 hours claimed by Hovanes Margarian (1.9) and Patrick Kimball (5.0) as "anticipated time" in connection with the instant motion, as excessive for the tasks described.
Reasonable Hourly Rates - In its determination, the Court has considered the skill and experience of the timekeepers, the nature of the work performed, the customary billing rate for each timekeeper, and the prevailing rate for comparable legal services in the local community. (Serrano v Unruh (Serrano IV) (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 643; Serrano v Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.) The law further instructs that the relevant local community for the purpose of determining reasonable fees is the community where the action is pending. (Tidrick v.
FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147.) Lastly, the law provides that the trial judge is "the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court." (Serrano III, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 49.) As a result, the Court finds that counsel's requested rates are not reflective of the prevailing rates in Stanislaus County and should be reduced. Therefore, the hourly rate for Hovanes Margarian and Patrick Kimball are approved in the reduced amount of $500. The hourly rate for Armen Margarian is approved in the reduced amount of $450.
The hourly rate for Ms. Oganyan is approved in the requested amount of $150.
Multiplier - The Court exercises its discretion to decline to award a multiplier to increase the fee award in this instance. Plaintiff has failed to convince the Court that the nature of the case warrants a multiplier herein. Moreover, to the extent that the contingent nature of the recovery factors into this analysis, the Court finds that this element is already reflected in the lodestar fees awarded.
Costs & Expenses The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred as set forth in the Memorandum of Costs filed on 3-5-26, in the amount of $4,565.72. The Court notes that Defendant failed to move to strike or tax the challenged cost items within the time period prescribed by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700. Even if the challenges raised in connection with the instant motion in this regard were timely, Civ. Code Sec. 1794(d) envisions a broader scope of recoverable "expenses" than is defined by CCP Sec. 1033.5.
S ummary of Award - The Court's lodestar calculation and total award is as follows: Timekeeper | Hours | Hourly Rate | Subtotal | H. Margarian | 8.1 | 500 | $ 4,050.00 | A. Margarian
| 28.2 | 450 | 12,690.00 | P. Kimball | 45.7 | 500 | 22,850.00 | E. Oganyan | 5.6 | 150 | 840.00 | | | Total Fees | $40,430.00 | | | Costs | 4,565.72 | | | AWARD | $ 44,995.72