****3987
11/17/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Contract - Other Contract
Los Angeles, California
ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE
SAUCEDO ISMAEL
FCA US LLC
DOES 1 TO 20
BARRY DAVID N. ESQ.
ROSENSTEIN MICHAEL HARRIS
PROUDFOOT MATTHEW M. ESQ.
PROUDFOOT MATTHEW M.
2/27/2018: PLAINTIFF ISMAEL SAUCEDO'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.
3/21/2018: Unknown
3/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/11/2018: Unknown
4/26/2018: Minute Order
4/26/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
4/27/2018: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOOT MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF FCA PMK, ETC
5/4/2018: PLAINTIFF ISMAEL SAUCEDO'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE, WITH PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S (1) FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 17, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39; AND (2) CODE-COMPLIANT VERIFI
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO: (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES 1.1, 12.1, 15.1, AND 17.1; (2) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1, 2,
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S (1) FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NOS. 1, 2, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 AND 24; ETC
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO: (1) FORM INTERROGATORIES 1.1, 12.1, 15.1 AND 17.1; ETC
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT NOS. 17, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 AND CODE-COMPLI
5/21/2018: PLAINTIFF'S CRC 3.1345 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NOS. 1, 2, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 AND CODE-COMPLIANT VERI
6/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION
6/26/2018: DECLARATION OF MARISA E. MADRID IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FOR INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
6/26/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FO INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
6/26/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ISMAEL SAUCEDO'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUES FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,660.00; DECLARATION OF MARISA E. MADRI
DocketExhibit List; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketStatement of the Case; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketJury Question; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketWitness List; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 14 DUI); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 2 Attorneys fees); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 1 Nonparty Witnesses); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 3Hypothetical fixes); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 4 Financial condition); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion in Limine (Number 5 Misuse Abuse Neglect); Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketAnswer; Filed by FCA US LLC (Defendant)
[-] Read LessDocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT
[-] Read LessDocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
[-] Read LessDocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
[-] Read LessDocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketSUMMONS
[-] Read LessDocketComplaint; Filed by Ismael Saucedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
[-] Read LessCase Number: ****3987 Hearing Date: January 07, 2020 Dept: 48
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ismael Saucedo
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant FCA US LLC
PROOF OF SERVICE:
ANALYSIS
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees, costs and expenses in the total amount of $78,963.02, consisting of $49,603.00 in attorney’s fees, $4,559.27 in costs and expenses and a 1.50 multiplier enhancement ($24,801.75) on the attorney’s fees.
The parties prepared this case for trial, but settled shortly before trial began. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff received a full buyback of the subject vehicle plus nearly $40,000 (a total of over $90,000). Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the subject action, either by way of informal resolution or by way of a motion for attorney’s fees and costs if necessary. Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5 (Barry Decl., Exh. 5).
Costs
On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs. If Defendant does not file a timely motion to tax costs, the costs will be added to the attorney’s fees order.
Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff brought two causes of action pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, Civil Code ; 1790, et seq. ; 1794(d) provides:
(d) If the 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.
Here, in light of the fact that Plaintiff recovered more than $90,000 and a buyback of the subject vehicle, Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the Song-Beverly Act.
The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94. The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.
The Court finds the hourly rates of $475, as set forth in the Declaration of David N. Barry, ¶ 9, and $400 and $600 set forth in the Declaration of Michael H. Rosenstein to be reasonable, with the accompanying observation that attorneys who bill at these hourly rate should not need to research routine issue of law and should resort to boilerplate when it will serve the client’s purposes.
The Court notes that there was a fair amount of discovery motions filed, and Plaintiff had to prepare for trial. The Court finds that the lodestar amount of $49,603.00 is the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded.
The Court declines to award any lodestar multiplier to attorney’s fees.
The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $49,603.00