United States District Court, C.D. California
APRIL K. JAMESON, Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR CO. et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, PLAINTIFF JAMESON MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES [32]
OTIS
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
On
February 2, 2018, Plaintiff April K. Jameson
(“Jameson”) filed suit against Defendant Ford
Motor Co. (“Ford”) in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County for violation of California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act. (Not. of Removal Ex. A
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Subsequently, Ford
removed the case to federal court, (Not. of Removal
(“Removal”), ECF No. 1) and over a year later,
parties filed a joint notice of settlement. (Not. of
Settlement, ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff now moves for
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $29, 406.21.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees
(“Motion”). (Mot. for Att'y Fees
(“Mot.”), ECF No. 32.)[1]
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On
August 22, 2013, Jameson purchased a new 2013 Ford Fusion for
$43, 490.16. (Mot. 3.) After three years and three months of
owning the vehicle and driving it 53, 181 miles, Jameson
began experiencing problems with the engine. (Mot. 3.)
Jameson took the vehicle, while still within warranty, to a
Ford-authorized repair facility after the vehicle began to
shake and would not accelerate. (Mot. 3.) She also felt a
loss of power and believed the vehicle would stall. (Mot. 3.)
At that time, the repair technicians said they were unable to
duplicate her concern. (Mot. 3.) She returned five weeks
later with a similar concern and the technicians replaced the
fuel low pressure sensor. (Mot. 3.) Although she still felt
the vehicle lacked power, technicians made no further
repairs. (Mot. 3.) Within two months, Jameson returned to the
authorized facility because the “check engine”
light was illuminated and the revolutions per minute meter
intermittently fluctuated at idle. (Mot. 3.) The technicians
replaced the faulty purge valve, but three weeks later
Jameson felt her vehicle shake and shut off. (Mot. 3.) Even
after jump starting the vehicle, it stopped operating after
moving five feet. (Mot. 3.) To resolve this matter, the
technicians replaced the battery. (Mot. 4.) During this
visit, the Technicians attempted to address two recalls, but
parts were only available for one of the recalls. (Mot. 4.)
Even after five visits to the repair facility in four months,
Jameson's problems with the vehicle remained unresolved.
(Mot. 4.)
On
April 10, 2017 and twice thereafter, Jameson contacted Ford
customer service and requested that Ford repurchase her
vehicle. (Mot. 4.) Jameson never received a response. (Mot.
4.) With the assistance of counsel, she filed suit against
Ford on February 2, 2018. (See Compl.) On October 2, 2018,
counsel for Jameson propounded discovery requests to Ford.
(Mot. 4.) In January 2019, counsel for Jameson made
additional discovery requests and deposed Ford's
“PMK.” (Mot. 5.) On or about January 30, 2019,
Ford served Jameson with an Offer of Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 68 in
the amount of $107, 070.00. (Mot. 5.) On February 12, 2019,
Jameson accepted their offer and she now moves for her
attorney's fees. (Mot. 5.)
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
“State
law governs attorney fees in diversity cases.”
Negrete v. Ford Motor Co., No. ED.18-cv-1972, 2019
WL 4221397, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (citing
Riordan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 999,
1004 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In a diversity case, the law of
the state in which the district court sits determines whether
a party is entitled to attorney fees, and the procedure for
requesting an award of attorney fees is governed by federal
law”)).
The
California Song-Beverly Act authorizes an award of costs and
expenses to plaintiffs prevailing in their claims pursuant to
the act. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d). Plaintiffs may
recover “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.”
Id. However, the “prevailing buyer has the
burden of showing that the fees incurred were allowable, were
reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and
were reasonable in amount.” Morris v. Hyundai Motor
Am., 41 Cal.App. 5th 24');">41 Cal.App. 5th 24, 34, (Ct. App. 2019) (collecting
case) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In
determining the amount of attorney's fees award under
§ 1794(d), a court must utilize the
“lodestar” method of calculating the award,
accomplished by multiplying the No. of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.
Morris, 41 Cal.App. 5th at 34 (citing Meister v. Regents
of Univ. of California, 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-49
(1998) (“the California Supreme Court intended its
lodestar method to apply to a statutory attorney's fee
award”)). Section 1794 requires a trial court to
“ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the
case the amount of actual time expended and the monetary
charge being made for the time expended are
reasonable.” Id. Courts may grant an upward or
downward departure based on (1) the complexity of the case
and procedural demands, (2) the skill exhibited and results
achieved, (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. Morris, 41
Cal.App. 5th at 34; Negrete, 2019 WL 4221397, at *2. If the
court finds the time expended or the amount requested are not
reasonable, it may award attorney fees in a lesser amount.
Morris, 41 Cal.App. 5th at 34.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Jameson
moves for costs in the amount of $4, 866.21, attorney's
fees in the amount of $16, 360.00 and a lodestar modifier in
the amount of $8, 180.00, totaling to $29, 406.21. (Mot. 2.)
Ford does not dispute the amount in costs. (Opp'n to Mot.
(“Opp'n”) 11, ECF No. 34.) Instead, Ford
argues that the attorney's fees are unreasonable and
asserts that the Court should grant at most $7, 500.00 in
attorney's fee. (Opp'n 11.) Since parties do not
dispute the costs, the Court GRANTS an award of $4, 866.21 in
costs. The Court now considers the reasonableness of the fees
using the lodestar method.
A.
Lodestar Analysis
Plaintiff
had six attorneys billing on this matter at the following
rates ...