This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 00:15:36 (UTC).

MISTY A MIRANDA ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/05/2016 MISTY A MIRANDA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FCA US LLC. 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 Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5980

  • Filing Date:

    07/05/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MIRANDA MISTY A.

STONE JACOB

Defendants and Respondents

FCA US LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE

JRDTSP LLC

JRDTSP LLC DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

O'CONNOR & MIKHOV LLP

MIKHOV STEVE BORISLAV ESQ.

WIRTZ RICHARD MICHAEL ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

MEYER STEVEN ERIC

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4/23/2018: PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF THE CASE

JOINT [PROPOSED] CACI INSTRUCTIONS

4/23/2018: JOINT [PROPOSED] CACI INSTRUCTIONS

PLAINTTFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5 ETC.

4/23/2018: PLAINTTFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.5 ETC.

PLAINTTFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.14 ETC.

4/23/2018: PLAINTTFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.14 ETC.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING DATE OF COMPLAINT

7/13/2018: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING DATE OF COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT OR IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFFS MISUSED, ABUSED, OR NEGLECTED

7/18/2018: DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT OR IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFFS MISUSED, ABUSED, OR NEGLECTED

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.4 TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM LAY WITNESSES

7/20/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO.4 TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM LAY WITNESSES

Minute Order

11/10/2016: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

3/24/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

3/24/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Proof of Service

8/28/2017: Proof of Service

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY OR REFERENCE TO INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES

8/28/2017: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY OR REFERENCE TO INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

8/30/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT OR IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFFS MISUSED, ABUSED OR NEGLECTED THE SUBJECT VEHICLE

9/6/2017: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY, ARGUMENT OR IMPLICATION THAT PLAINTIFFS MISUSED, ABUSED OR NEGLECTED THE SUBJECT VEHICLE

Proof of Service

9/6/2017: Proof of Service

Minute Order

9/8/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF LISA SCHWARTZ TUDZIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND JRDTSP LLC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA

9/19/2017: DECLARATION OF LISA SCHWARTZ TUDZIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS FCA US LLC AND JRDTSP LLC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DEFENDANT FCA

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

10/2/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

188 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2019
  • Notice ( of Order to Show Cause re Dismissal); Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Objection (Objection to Notice to Produce); Filed by FCA US LLC (Defendant); JRDTSP LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Objection (Objection to Notice of Lieu); Filed by FCA US LLC (Defendant); JRDTSP LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Motion in Limine (No. 9); Filed by FCA US LLC (Defendant); JRDTSP LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
394 More Docket Entries
  • 07/20/2016
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2016
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Misty A. Miranda (Plaintiff); Jacob Stone (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2016
  • COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY - VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC625980    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 74

BC625980 MISTY A MIRANDA vs FCA US LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The court awards plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $73,512.50.

Reasonable Rate

In this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted declarations in support of its hourly rates, which range from $225-$650 an hour depending upon their experience in the legal field. (Wirtz Decl. ¶¶ 3-8; Mikhov Decl. ¶¶29-38.) In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted extensive case law in support of the reasonableness of its fees. (Mikhov Decl. ¶¶41-69 and corresponding exhibits.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s rates are unreasonable without support. As such, the court finds Plaintiffs’ counsels’ rates are reasonable.

Reasonable Hours

The litigation of this case spanned the course of two years and nine months and continued to the eve of trial. (MFA p.1: 1; p.5: 9-28.) During the course of this suit, Plaintiffs’ counsel expounded 201.8 hours. (Wirtz Decl. Exhibit A; Mikhov Decl. Exhibit A.) Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ counsel billed an unreasonable excessive amount for such a routine case, which warrants a reduction of the fees by 30%. (Opp. to MFA p. 11: 23-28; p.12: 1-3.) Defendants further note Plaintiffs’ counsel lumped several tasks together in their entries and included administrative tasks. (Opp. to MFA p. 8: 22-28; p.9: 1-8.) While “a fee request ordinarily should be documented in great detail,” the absence of time records and billing statements did not deprive the court of “substantial evidence” to support an award when the attorney provided a declaration under the penalty of perjury which described the work and permitted the trial court to make its own evaluation of the reasonableness of the work done in light of the nature of the case and on the credibility of counsel’s declaration. (Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1587.) The court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours are reasonable.

Muliplier

The lodestar method may be adjusted based upon the specific considerations of an action so that the fee is calculated at the fair market value of legal services. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 386.) A fee may be adjusted based upon the following factors, “ (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Id. at 384.)

Though Plaintiffs’ counsel represented Plaintiffs on a contingency basis, a multiplier is not warranted here because the issues raised were not novel or difficult and this litigation did not preclude other employment by counsels.

Case Number: BC625980    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 74

BC625980 MISTY A MIRANDA VS FCA US LLC

Defendants’ Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Costs are taxed in the amount of $860.02. Moving party to give notice.

Expert witness fees. Defendant’s motion to tax expert witness fees is denied. Plaintiffs have submitted satisfactory evidence to show the expert witness fees requested were necessarily incurred.

Other fees. Defendants request the Court tax the following items (as sequentially listed in the memorandum of costs): (1) attorney services and messengers for court filings and service in the amount of $900.48; (2) overnight (delivery) in the amount of $98.75; (3) transcript in the amount of $289.42; (4) travel in the amount of $691.91; (5) postage in the amount of $1.30; (6) copies in the amount of $514.20; (7) scans in the amount of $5.80; and (8) Westlaw legal research in the amount of $49.30.

The motion to tax costs incurred for attorney services and messengers for court filings and service is denied. The court finds these costs were reasonably necessary to prosecute this action.

The motion to tax costs incurred for overnight delivery is denied for the same reason.

The motion to tax costs incurred for the transcript of the August 6, 2018 hearing is granted. The court did not order this transcript and it was not reasonably necessary to prosecute this action.

The motion to tax costs incurred for travel to court appearances is denied. The court finds these costs were reasonably necessary to prosecute this action.

The motion to tax costs incurred for postage, copies and scans is granted. Plaintiffs do not sufficiently itemize these costs. Therefore, the Court cannot find the costs incurred were reasonably necessary.

The motion to tax costs incurred for Westlaw legal research is denied for the same reason.

Attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees is denied without prejudice to a properly noticed fee motion.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted in part. The following costs are taxed: transcript in the amount of $289.42; postage in the amount of $1.30; copies in the amount of $514.20; scans in the amount of $5.80; and Westlaw legal research in the amount of $49.30.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JRDTSP LLC DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM is a litigant

Latest cases where FCA US LLC is a litigant