Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/15/2019 at 12:31:52 (UTC).

TYREE NEWTON VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Case Summary

On 08/15/2017 TYREE NEWTON filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BMW OF NORTH AMERICA 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 DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2414

  • Filing Date:

    08/15/2017

  • 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

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

NEWTON TYREE

Defendants and Respondents

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BENCHMARK LEGAL P.C.

SOGOYAN GREGORY

WOOD CAREY B.

ROSENSTEIN MARK H.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

TAKAHASHI BRIAN ESQ.

LEHRMAN KATE S.

 

Court Documents

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

8/28/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

DECLARATION OF CARKY WOOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

9/6/2018: DECLARATION OF CARKY WOOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

9/20/2018: BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

9/26/2018: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S PERSON MOST QUALIFIED AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Substitution of Attorney

11/5/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration

12/14/2018: Declaration

Motion for Change of Venue

12/21/2018: Motion for Change of Venue

Declaration

12/21/2018: Declaration

Opposition

1/7/2019: Opposition

Reply

1/11/2019: Reply

Order

1/18/2019: Order

Minute Order

1/18/2019: Minute Order

Reply

1/25/2019: Reply

Reply

1/25/2019: Reply

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/1/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

3/14/2019: Minute Order

Reply

6/10/2019: Reply

Declaration

6/14/2019: Declaration

63 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF BRIAN MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL MURRAY AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RE CONTINUANCE OF ALL DISCOVERY RELATED DATES AND DEADLINES TO CORRESPOND TO AUGUST 27 2019 TRIAL DATE); Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Reply (Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Deposition of Michael Murray and Further Responses to Document Requests); Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Notice (of Association of Counsel); Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Declaration (of Dara Tabesh Re Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Deposition of Michael Murray and Further Responses to Document Requests); Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Declaration ( of Athena Yontz ISO Defendant's Motion to Compel The Deposition of Michael Murray); Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Opposition (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Deposition of Michael Murray); Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Objection (Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Gregory Sogoyan); Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Declaration (of Jose Grijalva ISO Defedant's Motion to Compel The Deposition of Michael Murray); Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
97 More Docket Entries
  • 10/06/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2017
  • Answer; Filed by BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2017
  • DEFENDANT BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Tyree Newton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC672414    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 32

tyree newton,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC672414

Hearing Date: June 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

(1) Motion to tax costs

(2) motion for attorney fees, Costs, and expenses

Background

Plaintiff Tyree Newton (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant BMW of North America LLC (BMW) on August 15, 2017. The Complaint alleges violations of the Song Beverly Act arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2012 BMW 750 (Vehicle).

The action came on for trial on December 4, 2019. On December 11, 2019, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. On January 16, 2020, judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor in the total amount of $294,998.40 consisting of $98,332.80 in actual damages and $196,665.60 in civil penalties.

Motion to Tax Costs

BMW moves to strike Plaintiff’s entire Memorandum of Costs (MOC) or, in the alternative, tax the MOC in the amount of $32,719.34.[1]

A. Applicable Law

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (CCP § 1032(b).)

The statutory scheme for cost recovery establishes three categories of trial preparation expenses: (1) one category allowable as a matter of right to the prevailing party (CCP § 1033.5(a)), (2) one category disallowable unless expressly authorized elsewhere by law (CCP § 1033.5(b)), and (3) one category allowable or disallowable in the court’s discretion (CCP § 1033.5(c)(4)). Even where costs are deemed allowable, such costs are only recoverable to the extent that they are (1) reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation and (2) reasonable in amount. (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2), (3).)

“In ruling upon a motion to tax costs, the trial court’s first determination is whether the statute expressly allows the particular item and whether it appears proper on its face. ‘If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show [the costs] to be unnecessary or unreasonable.’ [Citation.] Where costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary. [Citation.] ‘Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (Foothill-De Anza Community College Dist. v. Emerich (Foothill) (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 11, 29-30.)

B. Discussion

1. All Costs

BMW requests that the entire MOC be stricken. BMW contends that the amounts claimed in the MOC’s Worksheet do not support the total costs claimed in the MOC’s Summary. In its memorandum, BMW never explains this alleged discrepancy nor why such a discrepancy should warrant striking all costs requested. As such, this request is denied.

2. Filing and Motion Fees

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests filing and motion fees of $798.30.

BMW contends that a portion of such fees ($363.30) was incurred in filing ten unnecessary motions and ex parte applications and was therefore not reasonably incurred. BMW’s contention is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, filing and motion fees are allowable by statute (CCP § 1033.5(a)(1)), and these fees appear proper. The burden is on BMW to show the fees are unreasonable or unnecessary. (Foothill, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 29.) BMW has not carried this burden by simply labeling the motions and ex parte applications as unnecessary. BMW needs to explain the lack of reasonable necessity. Second, simply singling out fees incurred for unsuccessful motions or applications is insufficient. Unsuccessful motions might still have been reasonably necessary to Plaintiff’s cause. (See City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1303 (“Litigation often involves a succession of attacks upon an opponent’s case; indeed, the final ground of resolution may only become clear after a series of unsuccessful attacks. Compensation is ordinarily warranted even for unsuccessful forays.”).) Third, BMW is incorrect about what costs are being sought. Plaintiff is requesting motion and filing fees for six (not ten) motions and no ex parte applications.

The Court will not tax the MOC on this basis.

3. Deposition Costs

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests deposition costs of $4,305.85.

BMW contends that deposition costs of $1,220.25 for Plaintiff’s expert Dan Calef (Calef) were unnecessary because BMW covered these costs. (Villegas Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A (check).) Plaintiff explains that he incurred the $1,220.25 to obtain a certified transcript of Calef’s deposition. (Cutler Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 3 (corroborating invoice).) This is an allowable cost under the costs statute. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(3)(A).) This is also an allowable cost under the Lemon Law statutes. (See Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 42 (stating that the Legislature intended the phrase “costs and expenses” in Civil Code section 1794(d) to cover items not included in the detailed statutory definition of “costs” set forth in CCP section 1033.5).)

The Court will not tax the MOC on this basis.

4. Service of Process Fees

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests service of process fees in the amount of $790.60.

BMW contends that the only legitimate service of process costs are those incurred for serving the Summons and Complaint. Not so. Service of process costs include costs for service of deposition and trial subpoenas. (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 132; see also Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 694.)

BMW also contends that these costs are unnecessary. According to BMW’s counsel, the $790.60 was incurred for serving process on BMW’s attorneys, four people at BMW of El Cajon, two people at BMW of South Bay, and six others. (Villegas Decl. ¶ 8.) BMW’s counsel opines that Plaintiff’s attorney “knows there is no reason to take the depositions of service advisors and technicians because the service advisors and technicians keep a contemporaneous record of their work on the repair orders, they prepare each time they work on a vehicle.” (Villegas Decl. ¶ 9.) BMW’s counsel goes on: “Plaintiff’s attorney also know the service advisors and technicians work on hundreds of vehicles each year and cannot remember each one.” (Ibid.)

BMW’s argument is again unpersuasive. First, the Court has sustained Plaintiff’s objection to Paragraph 9 of the Villegas Declaration. BMW’s counsel has not laid sufficient foundation demonstrating personal knowledge of why Plaintiff’s attorney sought to depose BMW’s service advisors and technicians. Second, BMW’s counsel cogently explains that “it was reasonable and necessary to subpoena these dealership personnel to appear at trial as they had personal knowledge of the defects and repair attempts at issue in this case.” (Cutler Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court will not tax the MOC on this basis.

5. Court Reporter Fees

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests court reporter fees of $14,597.

BMW asserts that the Plaintiff has billed $6,0002 for transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the Court and that such costs are disallowable under CCP section 1033.5(b)(5). BMW is incorrect. These are predominantly court reporter fees, not transcript costs. (Cutler Decl. Ex. 5.) Costs for the services of the official court reporter or an official pro tempore reporter are recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party. (Gov. Code § 68086(c), (d)(2); CRC Rule 2.956(c).) To the limited extent that these fees include transcripts, the Court concludes that they are compensable as “expenses” under Civil Code section 1794(d). (Warren, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at 28 (permitting trial transcript costs under this statute).)

The Court will not tax the MOC on this basis.

6. Models, Enlargements, and Photocopies Costs

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests models, enlargements, and photocopies costs of $657.48.

BMW claims that these costs are not compensable because Plaintiff has not specified a basis for this request. Not so. The MOC states: “Expenses paid to The Law Offices of Michael H. Rosenstein for trial binder preparation, trial exam outlines, and trial exhibits.” In opposition, Plaintiff provides receipts to substantiate these costs. (Cutler Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 7.)

The Court will not tax the MOC on this basis.

7. Other Costs

In the MOC, Plaintiff requests “other” costs of $23,951.92. According to BMW’s counsel, these “other” costs include $14,851.28 in expert witness fees, $2,220.71 in courier fees, and $6,613.72 in fees for travel, mileage, parking, hotels, and meals. BMW challenges all three categories.

a. Expert Witness Fees

BMW correctly contends that the expert witness fees are not compensable absent supporting documentation. Under the costs statute, “[w]here costs are not expressly allowed by the statute, the burden is on the party claiming the costs to show that the charges were reasonable and necessary.” (Foothill, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 29.) Under the Lemon Law statutes, a prevailing buyer has the burden of showing that fees and costs incurred were allowable, reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and reasonable in amount. (Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 507.)

In opposition, Plaintiff carries this burden. Plaintiff submits receipts totaling $13,776.28 for its expert, Calef, to attend the vehicle inspection, prepare for deposition and trial, and attend deposition and trial. (Cutler Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 8.) In addition, Plaintiff submits receipts totaling $1,075 for professional cameraman Frank Galassi to attend the two vehicle inspections. (Cutler Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. 9.) These two expenses (totaling $14,851.28) are compensable under the Lemon Law. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138 (noting that “expenses” under Lemon Law include “expert witness fees”).)

b. Courier Costs

BMW contends that Plaintiff’s courier costs are not recoverable. The Court agrees. Courier or messenger fees are not specifically enumerated as allowable costs in CCP section 1033.5(a) nor are they prohibited in section 1033.5(b). (Foothill, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 30.) Courier fees are therefore recoverable in the trial court’s discretion if reasonable necessary to the conduct of the litigation. (Ibid.) The same result obtains under the Lemon Law statutes because costs and expenses must be “reasonably incurred by the buyer.” (Civ. Code § 1794(d).) In the Court’s view, courier fees are generally not reasonably incurred by the buyer or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation because they are less expensive means of delivering and filing documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff must show good cause to obtain reimbursement for courier services. Plaintiff has not made this showing, so the Court will tax the MOC by $2,220.71.

c. Travel, Parking, Hotel, and Meal Costs

BMW asserts that fees for travel, mileage, parking, hotels, and meals are not recoverable. BMW points out that, under the costs statute, “[r]outine expenses for local travel by attorneys or other firm employees are not reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775-76.) Like with courier costs, Plaintiff must show that these costs were reasonable necessary to the conduct of the litigation or “reasonably incurred by the buyer.”

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel submits receipts of expenses totaling $3,894.14 for Plaintiff to attend trial. (Cutler Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that such expenses were reasonable and necessary because Plaintiff lives in Chula Vista (San Diego County) and needed to be physically present for trial in downtown Los Angeles. (Ibid.) But Plaintiff’s counsel fails to explain why Plaintiff needed to file this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court as opposed to San Diego County Superior Court. Absent this explanation, the Court cannot conclude that these expenses were reasonably necessary. Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to provide an explanation as to why travel expenses incurred by his attorneys were reasonable and necessary to this litigation. For this reason, the MOC is taxed by $6,613.72.

C. Conclusion

BMW’s motion to tax the MOC is granted in the total amount of $8,834.43.

Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $409,194.20. This amount consists of (1) $101,370.50 in attorney fees for Strategic Law Practices, APC (SLP), (2) $137,440 in attorney fees for the Law Office of Michael Rosenstein (LOMR), (3) $7,421 in attorney fees for Benchmark Legal, PC (BL), (4) $18,911.50 in attorney fees for EcoTech Law Group, PC (ELG), (5) $45,251.15 in costs and expenses for SLP, (6) a 1.35 multiplier enhancement on a portion of the attorney fees ($92,800.05), and (6) $6,000 in fees for reviewing the opposition brief, preparing the reply brief, and attending the hearing.[2]

A. Applicable Law

A prevailing buyer in a lawsuit under the Song-Beverly Act is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees: “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(d).)

In determining a reasonable amount of attorney fees, the trial court begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 36.) The lodestar may then be adjusted based on factors specific to the case in order to fix the fee at the fair market value of the legal services provided. (Ibid.) These factors include (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, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. (Ibid.)

The prevailing buyer bears the burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount. (Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 507.)

B. Discussion

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is a prevailing buyer in this lawsuit because Plaintiff obtained a money judgment against BMW. The only issue raised in this motion is the reasonableness of the requested amount of attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

1. Reasonable Hourly Rates

The hourly rates claimed by the attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Gregory Yu (2019 rate of $525/hr and 2020 rate of $550/hr); (2) Jacob Cutler (2020 rate of $460/hr); (3) Christine Haw (2018 rate of $375/hr and 2019 rate of $410/hr); (4) Caitlin Scott (2018 rate of $335/hr and 2019 rate of $365/hr); (5) Eleazar Kim ($370/hr); (6) Kyle Tracy ($445/hr); (7) Carey Wood (2018 rate of $375/hr and 2019 rate of $395/hr); (8) Gregory Sogoyan (2019 rate of $350/hr and 2020 rate of $385/hr); (9) Johnny Ogata ($425/hr); (10) Natasha Bhushan (2018 rate of $375/hr); (11) Matthew Pardo ($335/hr); (12) Yoel Hanohov ($350/hr); (13) Katherine Hwang ($435/hr); (14) Ramtin Shahian ($410/hr); (15) Dara Tabesh ($545/hr); (16) Brian Murray ($400/hr); (17) Sepehr Daghighian ($550/hr); (18) Jim Martinez ($275/hr); and (19) Michael Rosenstein ($600/hr).

BMW claims that the hourly rates claimed by these attorneys are unreasonable. The Court agrees. “In determining hourly rates, the court must look to the ‘prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’ ” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 100.) In making this determination, “[t]he court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market.” (Ibid.)

SLP does not provide a breakdown of the number of hours billed by each SLP attorney. Given the evidence submitted by the parties and the Court’s experience in similar matters, the Court finds that a reasonable uniform hourly rate for the work performed as follows: SLP attorneys is $300/hr; Rosenstein is $500/hr; Murray is $225/hr; Daghighian is $400/ hr; Martinez is $225/hr; BL attorneys is $300/hr; and ELG attorneys is $400/hr.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The total number of billable hours claimed by Plaintiff’s attorneys is 592.6 hours. SLP claims 258.8 billable hours, LOMR claims 281 billable hours, BL claims 18.1 billable hours, and ELG claims 34.7 billable hours.

BMW claims that the number of hours billed is unreasonable.

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by the attorneys in this matter are as follows: SLP 193.8 hours; Rosenstein 113.8 hours; Murray 132.4 hours; Daghighian 12.2 hours; Martinez 7.6 hours; BL 18.1 hours; and 9.7 hours.

In making this determination, the court found that plaintiff’s counsel inappropriately billed for some clerical tasks and that some of the billing was excessive, especially for attorneys as experienced as plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff has 19 attorneys, and while plaintiff has the right to have multiple attorneys, the court finds that some of the attorneys’ work were duplicative and unnecessary. The court also found that some of the work was unnecessary.

C. Multiplier

Plaintiff requests application of a positive lodestar multiplier of 1.35 on the grounds that (1) his counsel obtained an excellent outcome and (2) the risks posed by this action were substantial. BMW responds, and the Court agrees, that no multiplier is warranted because this case presented no novel or difficult issues and because the lodestar sufficiently compensates Plaintiff’s attorneys for their work in this matter.

Conclusion

BMW’s motion to tax costs is granted in the amount of $8,834.43.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses is granted in the total amount of $203,146.72.[3]


[1] Plaintiff’s objections are ruled on as follows (Overruled (O); (Sustained (S)):

(1) S, (2) S, (3) O, (4) S, (5) O, (6) O, (7) S, (8) O, and (9) O.

[2] Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are denied as irrelevant. A written trial court ruling has no precedential value. (Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Stefatos Declaration are overruled.

[3] Attorney Fee Award Calculations:

SLP Fees: $300 billing rate x 193.8 hours = $58,140

LOMR Fees: $93,280

· Rosenstein: $500 billing rate x 113.8 hours = $56,900

· Murray: $225 billing rate x 132.4 hours = $29,790

· Daghighian: $400 billing rate x 12.2 hours = $4,880

· Martinez: $225 billing rate x 7.6 hours = $1,710

BL Fees: $300 billing rate x 18.1 hours = $5,430

ELG Fees: $400 billing rate x 9.7 hours = $3,880

Costs / Expenses: $45,251.15 costs – $8,834.43 reduction = $36,416.72

Fee Motion: $6,000

Grand Total: $203,146.72

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC is a litigant