Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 03:44:08 (UTC).

JACK SHADI ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/29/2017 JACK SHADI filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GENERAL MOTORS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GAIL FEUER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7951

  • Filing Date:

    09/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GAIL FEUER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

VENTURA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC INC.

SHADI JACK

Defendants and Respondents

PARADISE CHEVROLET

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

GENERAL MOTORS LLC

CHEVROLET PARADISE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

YASHAR LAW APLC

YASHAR NADIA

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

RUBEN DAVID N. ESQ.

ARENS MARY LYNN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

3/27/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/12/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/1/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

7/3/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Minute Order

11/14/2018: Minute Order

Motion in Limine

12/28/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

12/28/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

12/28/2018: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

12/28/2018: Motion in Limine

Ex Parte Application

1/9/2019: Ex Parte Application

Ex Parte Application

5/10/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Ruling

5/10/2019: Notice of Ruling

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

1/2/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Unknown

1/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/19/2018: Unknown

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT/EXPRESS WARRANTY; ETC

9/29/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT/EXPRESS WARRANTY; ETC

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (General Motors LLC's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial); Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 78; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 78; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Continue Trial Date) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date); Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 01/02/2018
  • SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Answer; Filed by General Motors, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS, JACK SHADI AND VENTURA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC INC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT/EXPRESS WARRANTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Jack Shadi (Plaintiff); Ventura Wholesale Electric Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2013
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677951    Hearing Date: March 17, 2021    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

JACK SHADI and VENTURA WHOLESALE ELECTRIC INC.;

Plaintiff,

vs.

gENERAL MOTORS llc; PARADISE CHEVEROLET; DOES 1-100 inclusive;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC677951

Hearing Date:

March 17, 2021

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Plaintiffs Jack shadi and ventura wholesale electric inc.’s MOtion for $34,003.80 in attorney fees and costs

Plaintiffs Jack Shadi and Ventura Wholesale Electric Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $30,755 in attorneys’ fees and $1,592.15 in costs.

Factual Background

This is a lemon law action. The Complaint alleges as follows. On or about 2016, Plaintiffs purchased a 2016 Chevrolet Truck/Express. (Complaint ¶ 8.) From the time that Plaintiffs received the truck through the present, the truck has failed to function properly and is not safe or reliable. (Complaint ¶ 10.) Defendants were provided numerous opportunities to repair the truck, and have refused to replace the vehicle or reimburse Plaintiffs. (Complaint ¶ 34.)

procedural history

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on September 29, 2017, alleging five causes of action:

  1. Breach of contract/express warranty

  2. Breach of implied warranties

  3. Negligence

  4. Violation of statute/restitution

  5. Misrepresentation/fraud

Defendant General Motors (“GM”) filed an Answer on November 3, 2017.

On April 12, 2018 and against on June 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Entry of Default, but it was denied both times.

On October 17, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement whereby Plaintiffs agreed to accept $20,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by noticed motion but no request for dismissal has been filed..

On February 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Attorney Fees.

On March 4, 2021, GM filed an Opposition.

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

Discussion

  1. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Parties to litigation must generally bear their own attorney’s fees, unless they otherwise agree. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.) However, the Song-Beverly Act provides for the award of attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs as follows:

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. (Civ. Code § 1794, subd. (d).)

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.) In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment. (See id.)

In determining the proper amount of fees to award, courts use the lodestar method. The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of reasonable hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate. “Fundamental to its determination . . . [is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . in the presentation of the case.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).) A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney. (Id. at p. 49.) “Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues. A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV).) The Court in Serrano IV also stated that fees associated with preparing the motion to recover attorneys’ fees are recoverable. (See id. at p. 624.)

Here, Plaintiffs ask for attorneys’ fees and costs of $34,003.80 as the prevailing parties. This amount is based on 92.80 attorney hours at $350 per hour, for a total of $32,330 in attorneys’ fees plus $1673.80 in costs. (Yashar Decl., ¶ 15.) As noted On October 17, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement whereby Plaintiffs agreed to accept $20,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by noticed motion. (Yashar Decl., Exh. 4, ¶ 1.)

In Opposition, GM argues that the motion is untimely because the settlement agreement was signed 489 days prior to filing this Motion, in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702(b)(1). (Oppo. at pp. 3-4.) Rule 3.1702 states that a motion to claim attorneys’ fees “must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal[.]” (Rule 3.1702(b)(1).) However, although the settlement states that the Plaintiff was required to file a notice of settlement within 5 business days of the execution of the agreement, no such notice of settlement was filed. The Court’s minute order from March 6, 2020 indicates that settlement had not taken place (“If parties have not reached a settlement by 05/05/2020[…]”). The parties’ counsel did not represent to the Court that the case had settled until the July 14, 2020 Minute Order, and represented that “the terms of the settlement will be finalized after the Hearing on Motion for Attorney’s Fees[.]” Accordingly, the Court finds that the instant Motion is not untimely.

GM objects to the charges that it contends are “excessive, clerical, unsupported, or unnecessary work,” totaling 34.5 hours. (Oppo. at p. 5.) For example, GM contests charges for “Plaintiff’s Deposition” because Plaintiff’s deposition was not taken in this case, and for hearings that did not take place or were not attended on the billed days. (Oppo. at p. 5.) GM also objects to charges for duplicate work, time spent with an unused expert, time for default against a different defendant, for time spent on a motion to compel that this court denied, and for various entries that GM argues are excessive or over-billed. (Oppo at pp. 5-6.)

In Reply, Plaintiffs present evidence that Plaintiff Shadi’s deposition was taken on December 28, 2018, that the Court hearing dates were mis-dated in typographical error, that the entries were not duplicative, that the expert inspected the vehicle, and that the other challenged entries were reasonable. (Reply at pp. 4-7.) Plaintiffs concede reductions for the Motion to Compel by $962.50, the 1/9/19 entry by $87.50, the 10/25/19 entry by $525, the 7/17/19 cost by $61.65, and the 10/25/19 cost by $20. (Reply at pp. 7-8.)

The Court has reviewed the billing statements and Motions and finds as follows. Based on the Court’s experience with similar matter, the requested billing rate of $350/hr is reasonable. The Court accepts Plaintiffs’ reductions and finds that the following reflects a reasonable number of hours at a reasonable hourly rate: $30,755 in attorneys’ fees and $1,592.15 in costs.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $30,755 in attorneys’ fees and $1,592.15 in costs.

DATED: March 17, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where General Motors, LLC. is a litigant