24CV04577, Kelly v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
Plaintiff Dennis Kelly (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against defendants Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia America (together “Defendants”), with causes of action arising under the Song-Beverly Act. This matter is on calendar for Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and Cal. Civ. Code § 1794.
The Motion is GRANTED, in the amount of $35,456.76.
- The Basis for Fees
Cal. Civ. Code §1794(d) provides: “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.” This statute “is consistent with California’s approach to determining a reasonable attorney fee in various statutory and contractual contexts, which approach ‘ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.’” Warren v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 36 quoting PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (emphasis by the Warren court). The statute also permits use of a multiplier of the lodestar figure. Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 822.
The parties settled the case in principle December 17, 2024, requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff $33,577.33, and entitling Plaintiffs to attorney fees from Defendant under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, in an amount either to be stipulated, or determined by the Court if the parties could not agree. Plaintiffs brought the instant motion on July 25, 2025.
According to the Motion, two attorneys worked on the case for Plaintiffs, accruing billed hours of 51 hours for billed fees of 30,600.00, 2.5 prospective hours for $1,500, with a requested multiplier of 30% ($9,630.00) for a total fee request of $41,730.00, plus $806.76 in accrued costs, for a total of $42,536.76.
Defendants’ opposition raises a number of arguments (addressed below) resulting in adjustments that the award not exceed $18,725.
- The Rates Requested Are Reasonable
Beginning with counsel’s rates, “[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” PLCM, 22 Cal.4th at 1095. Plaintiffs have had 2 attorneys work on this case. Plaintiffs request a billing rate of $600 per hour for both their Counsel. See Declaration of John Hendrickson ¶ 6, 9.
The Court finds that the hourly rates are not reasonable based on the expected rate in Sonoma County for similar work. The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court…” Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (internal citation omitted). A court is entitled to rely on it’s own practical experience in determining what is a proper rate within the community. See Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009 (Heritage Pacific Financial) [“The court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate”]; accord, 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437 (569 East County Boulevard).
Defendant cites to Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 256, for the proposition that the rate of $350 per hour is the appropriate amount for Song-Beverly cases. This is an incorrect recitation of the holding of that court. The Court in Mikhaeilpoor merely stated that the trial court had not abused its discretion in reducing plaintiff’s requested hourly fees when assessing an attorney who had been practicing around five years. Ibid. To read that to broadly constrain the hourly amount courts can award in Song-Beverly cases would both unnecessarily constrain a trial court’s discretion and be an improper divestiture of the Court’s duty to assess the appropriate fee award in an individual case.
This case is distinguishable from Mikhaeilpoor. Both of the attorneys in this case are partners in their small, specialty practice, and each have more than fifteen years of experience practicing law. Declaration of John Hendrickson ¶ 2, 4. Defendant fails to show that the rate requested and supported by evidence is unreasonable. The Court finds that with the qualifications and experience set forth in the Hendrickson Declaration, fees requested are approximately in range of the rate expected for similarly qualified attorneys in the local Sonoma County community for both of Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Court finds $600 per hour as the appropriate amount for attorneys in this locality.
III. The Hours Were Reasonably Expended
Plaintiff seeks to recover for a total of 51 hours, plus 2.5 additional hours for the hearing and a reply. Plaintiff has filed a reply. At the time of this tentative ruling, no hearing has occurred, and the reply does not disclose the amount of time expended in its preparation. The Court reduces the prospectively requested time by one hour, for reasonable time expenditure of 52.5 hours. This results in reasonable fees of $31,500.
- Some Multiplier is Proper
Plaintiff seeks a multiplier of 1.3. Defendants argue against a multiplier on the basis that the work “did not involve any novel or complex issues”; Song-Beverly litigation is comprised of largely routine facts, the issues are framed by the statute, the proof is straightforward, and the stakes are limited. Defendants aver that in fact the Court should apply a negative multiplier. While Defendants are correct that the case is uncomplicated, the Court concludes that a multiplier of 1.1 is appropriate under the considerations set forth in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 42-47.
The evidence submitted shows that Defendants initially rejected the repurchase requests, refused to fulfill their settlement agreement without court intervention, most of the work occurred while the result was uncertain in a contingency matter, and that both the contingent nature of the case and the results achieved are factors supporting a multiplier. The Court is not awarding the full 1.3 multiplier requested, as the case appears to be fairly routine for Song-Beverly matters, there is a not insubstantial percentage of billable time which incurred after settlement (and the matter is not contingent), and that the settlement amount appearing to be nothing more than the statutory recovery. See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (lodestar determination may be adjusted upward based on 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; and 4) the contingent nature of the fee award). Plaintiff filed no motions before settlement. Plaintiff was success on the motion to enforce the settlement. The contingent nature of the of the case inherently represented some basis for a multiplier, and approximately seven hours of the work performed on the case occurred after the finalized settlement in December of 2024. Therefore, the multiplier of 1.1 is appropriate.
$31,500 in fees are properly applied at the 1.1 multiplier, resulting in those fees totaling $34,650.
- Costs
Plaintiff seeks $806.76 in actual costs. Hendrickson Decl. ¶ 13. Defendants do not object to any of the costs. Therefore, the Court grants costs of $806.76.
- Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs is GRANTED. Total fees are granted in the amount of $34,650.00. Costs are granted in the amount of $806.76. The total cost and fee award is therefore $35,456.76.
Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit a written order to the Court consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule of Court 3.1312(a) and (b).