Pistotnik v. Mercedes Benz USA CA2/8

Filed 7/2/14 Pistotnik v. Mercedes Benz USA CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

GALIA PISTOTNIK, B249140

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC482850) v.

MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel J. Buckley, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Jim Whitworth and Jim O. Whitworth, for Appellant.

LeClairRyan, Gary P. Simonian and Robert G. Harrison, for Respondent.

__________________________

Galia Pistotnik appeals following the entry of an amended judgment that reduced the attorney’s fee award in her successful lemon law action against Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment. We disagree and affirm the amended judgment. For the same reason, we find no error in the court’s order quashing a writ of execution pursuant to the original judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Galia Pistotnik sued Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, under the “lemon law” act,1 contending that her leased car was defective. Mercedes stipulated to liability, and at a bifurcated bench trial on November 2012 Pistotnik was awarded more than $45,000 in damages. Two weeks later at the second phase of the trial, the trial court declined to impose a civil penalty against Mercedes and awarded Pistotnik attorney’s fees of $50,000. As part of that ruling, the trial court found that “legal work was not necessary after May 21, 2012, and . . . that many time entries were excessive and unreasonable.” On December 31, 2012, the trial court entered a written judgment prepared by Mercedes that included both the $50,000 fee award and the trial court’s comments concerning the amount and reasonableness of those fees. On January 10, 2013, Pistotnik filed and served by FAX a Notice of Entry of Judgment to which the judgment was attached. On January 16, 2013, Mercedes filed and served a motion captioned as one seeking to clarify the trial court’s attorney’s fee ruling, or, in the alternative, to reconsider its order. The basis for the motion was the trial court’s earlier findings that attorney’s fees incurred by Pistotnik after May 21, 2012, were unnecessary and that many of her lawyer’s time entries were excessive and unreasonable. According to Mercedes, its review of the time sheets submitted by Pistotnik’s lawyer showed that she incurred fees of $23,412.50 as of May 21, 2012, making the trial court’s fee award of $50,000 inconsistent on its face. Furthermore, the finding that many of the lawyer’s charges were excessive or unreasonable meant that some portion of the $23,412.50 was also excessive