GUSTAVO RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Case Summary
On 08/24/2016 GUSTAVO RAMIREZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FORD MOTOR COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****1562
-
Filing Date:
08/24/2016
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
RAMIREZ GUSTAVO
Defendants and Respondents
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
MIKHOV STEVEN B. ESQ.
MIKHOV STEVE ESQ.
Defendant Attorney
PROUDFOOT MATTHEW M.
Court Documents
11/14/2018: Notice
8/24/2016: SUMMONS
11/29/2016: Unknown
11/30/2016: Unknown
12/13/2016: Minute Order
12/13/2016: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS OF AUTHORITIES
12/15/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
5/16/2017: Unknown
5/24/2017: Unknown
6/5/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; ETC.
6/12/2017: Minute Order
7/28/2017: Unknown
8/14/2017: Minute Order
8/14/2017: ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER
8/15/2017: NOTICE OF RULING
8/24/2017: DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
11/7/2017: Minute Order
12/5/2017: Minute Order
Docket Entries
- 11/29/2018
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal Following Settlement) - Held - Continued
- 11/29/2018
-
Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal Following Settlement)); Filed by Clerk
- 11/14/2018
-
Notice (of Order to Show Cause Hearing); Filed by Gustavo Ramirez (Plaintiff)
- 11/01/2018
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion
- 10/22/2018
-
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk
- 06/27/2018
-
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
- 06/27/2018
-
Notice of Change of Address
- 06/25/2018
-
at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
- 06/15/2018
-
at 08:31 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
- 03/21/2018
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Unknown Event Type - Held - Continued
- 10/06/2016
-
Notice; Filed by Gustavo Ramirez (Plaintiff)
- 10/06/2016
-
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 08/30/2016
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gustavo Ramirez (Plaintiff)
- 08/30/2016
-
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
- 08/30/2016
-
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gustavo Ramirez (Plaintiff)
- 08/26/2016
-
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 08/26/2016
-
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 08/24/2016
-
SUMMONS
- 08/24/2016
-
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRAITY - VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT; ETC
- 08/24/2016
-
Complaint; Filed by Gustavo Ramirez (Plaintiff)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC631562 Hearing Date: December 05, 2019 Dept: 74
BC631562 GUSTAVO RAMIREZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. Attorney fees of $11,876 are awarded to plaintiff.
Lodestar
The court has reviewed the records submitted with the motion, and determines that a reasonable award is $11,876.
Multiplier
Plaintiff requests a multiplier of .5. “The award of a multiplier is in the end a discretionary matter largely left to the trial court.” (Hogar v. Community Development Com'n of City of Escondido (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1371.) “[T]he trial court is not required to include a fee enhancement for exceptional skill, novelty of the questions involved, or other factors. Rather, applying a multiplier is discretionary.” (Rey v. Madera Unif. Sch. Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1242.)
“A trial court should award a multiplier for exceptional representation only when the quality of representation far exceeds the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation. Otherwise, the fee award will result in unfair double counting and be unreasonable. Nor should a fee enhancement be imposed for the purpose of punishing the losing party.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138-1139.)
Plaintiff has not established a multiplier should be awarded in this standard lemon law case which settled well before trial.
Motion for Costs and Expenses
Plaintiff offered no argument in the memorandum of points and authorities as to the reasonableness, necessity, recoverability and type of costs and expenses requested. The issue can be addressed through the memorandum of costs.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases