Rahman v. FCA US LLC
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:21-cv-02584-SB-JC |
| Citation | 594 F.Supp.3d 1199 |
| Parties | Mo RAHMAN v. FCA US LLC et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Daniel A. Law, Tionna Dolin, Simi Peterson, Matthew Jeffrey Pardo, Strategic Legal Practices APC, Regina Lotardo, Blair and Ramirez LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Mo Rahman.
Eric D. Sentlinger, Sarah Marie Carlson Lambert, Spencer Peter Hugret, Vernice Trina Louie, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Amy Patricia Maclear, Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for FCA US LLC.
Proceedings: [In Chambers] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [Dkt. No. 45]
This is a lemon law case filed by Plaintiff Mo Rahman against Defendant FCA US LLC. The parties reached a settlement on Plaintiff's claims in September 2021 that was finalized in February 2022. Pursuant to the settlement, Plaintiff filed this motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 45. Defendant filed an opposition that does not dispute Plaintiff's entitlement to fees under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA) but contends that the amount of fees claimed are excessive. Dkt. No. 58. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and vacates the April 1, 2022 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ; L.R. 7-15.1 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part.
Plaintiff purchased a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee manufactured by Defendant in June 2016. Compl. ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 1-2. After experiencing repeated mechanical problems with the vehicle, Plaintiff filed this action in state court in July 2020 alleging violations of the SBA and an additional claim for fraudulent inducement. Id. The parties litigated the case in state court for eight months, including a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to strike, and the filing of two amended versions of the complaint. In November 2020, Defendant first offered to settle the action for $48,835.00 and $8,000 in attorneys’ fees, which Plaintiff did not accept. Dkt. No. 45-3. Defendant removed on the basis of diversity in March 2021 after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the dealership, a non-diverse party. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the Court denied. Dkt. No. 29. The parties resolved Plaintiff's claims during mediation and filed a notice of settlement on September 23, 2021. Dkt. No. 33. Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiff will receive $70,000 as full restitution for his claims, plus civil penalties, and Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to a motion before the Court. Motion at 14. The parties later resolved Plaintiff's request for costs. Dkt. No. 51, at 1 n.1. Thus, the only remaining issue for the Court to resolve is Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice (RJN), and both parties filed numerous evidentiary objections. Dkt. Nos. 47 (RJN), 60–61 (Defendant's Objections), 64-2 (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objections), 64-3 (Plaintiff's Objections). Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of 24 orders from state and federal courts granting motions for attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff's counsel, as well as two declarations filed in support of prior motions for attorneys’ fees in other cases. RJN; Shahian Decl. Exs. 1–26, Dkt. Nos. 45-9 to 45-34. Defendant objects to these requests, arguing that they are not directly relevant to the issues before the Court. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiff's request is unnecessary because "when a court takes judicial notice of another court's opinion, it may do so not for the truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity." Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). Nonetheless, the Court grants Plaintiff's request and overrules Defendant's objections thereto because court filings are properly subject to judicial notice. Zargarian v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , 442 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1223 (C.D. Cal. 2020).
The parties make additional boilerplate objections to their respective declarations, most of which are objections to statements about the procedural history of this case. See, e.g. , Dkt. No. 61, at 10 (); Dkt. No. 64-3, at 2 (). Defendant also objects to paragraph 7 of Payam Shahian's declaration, which lists cases that have approved her hourly rate, as irrelevant and prejudicial. Dkt. No. 60, at 2–3. Defendant's objection appears to be an argument on the merits of Plaintiff's claim, arguing that Plaintiff's cases do not present an accurate picture of prevailing market rates. Id . Indeed, Defendant cites the same case—and makes the same argument—in its opposition. Opp. at 10–11. In any event, this evidence is not irrelevant because the fact that "a lawyer charges a particular hourly rate, and gets it, is evidence bearing on what the market rate is, because the lawyer and his clients are part of the market." Carson v. Billings Police Dep't , 470 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2006). Nor is it prejudicial, as Defendant may rebut Plaintiff's market-rate evidence in its opposition. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc. , 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Defendant's objection to paragraph 7 of Shahian's declaration is overruled . As the Court does not rely on any of other portions of declarations subject to an objection, the remainder of both parties’ objections are overruled as moot. A.B. v. Facebook, Inc. , No. CV 20-9012-CBM-(MAAx), 2021 WL 2791618, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2021).
The SBA provides for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d). The parties agree that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under the SBA as the prevailing plaintiff pursuant to the settlement agreement; however, they disagree as to whether the fees incurred by Plaintiff in litigating this action were reasonable. In examining reasonableness under this section, a court must "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." Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor Am. , 31 Cal. App. 4th 99, 104, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 (1994). The Nightingale court explained:
At the outset, it is important to note that we are not concerned in this case with a customary statutory or contractual provision which merely provides for "reasonable attorney fees." The statute we are dealing with takes a somewhat different approach. It requires the trial court to make an initial determination of the actual time expended; and then 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. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, factors such as the complexity of the case and procedural demands, the skill exhibited and the results achieved.... A 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.’ "
Id . (quoting Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , 4 Cal. App. 4th 807, 816, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 (1992) ). A court may not "categorically deny or reduce an attorney fee award" due to a plaintiff's failure to accept an initial settlement offer if the ultimate recovery exceeds the original offer. Reck v. FCA US LLC , 64 Cal. App. 5th 682, 687, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 (2021).
Plaintiff seeks to recover a total of $54,896.53 in attorneys’ fees: $38,071.50 in fees, plus an additional $13,325.03 for a 1.35 multiplier enhancement and $3,500 in anticipated fees incurred in bringing this motion. Motion at 16.
The first step in calculating counsel's lodestar is determining whether the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Forouzan v. BMW of N. Am., LLC , No. CV 17-3875-DMG (GJSx), 2019 WL 856395, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019). Plaintiff requests the fees of 14 attorneys who worked on this case:
| Name | Year Admitted | Rate |
| Aaina Duggal | 2018 (N.Y.); 2021 (Cal.) | $365 |
| Daniel Law | 2016 | $425 |
| Eliana Amirian | 2021 | $375 |
| Jaclyn Laing | 2017 | $385 |
| Jason Clark | 2007 | $565 |
| James Doddy | 2004 | $595 |
| Mark Gibson | 2008 | $450 |
| Matthew Pardo | 2017 | $390 |
| Neil Butala | 2013 | $460 |
| Nino Sanaia (law clerk) | N/A | $285 |
| Payam Shahian | 2003–2004 | $695 |
| Regina Lotardo | Unknown | $435 |
| Sean Crandall | 2015 | $425 |
| Tionna Dolin | 2014 | $425/$450/$490 |
Defendant cites two cases where lower rates were awarded. See Opp. at 11 (). But Plaintiff cites to numerous recent opinions from courts in Los Angeles County that have approved the same or substantially similar rates for each member of Plaintiff's counsel, with the exception of Nino Sanaia. Shahian Decl., Dkt. No. 45-8, ¶¶ 7, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 55, 57, 59. Sanaia's rate also appears reasonable—she received her bar license in a foreign country in 2015 and requests a rate similar to what is reasonable for paralegals in this district, which the Court finds to be a fair comparison given her experience. See Taylor Farms Cal., Inc. v. Cooper's Cold Foods, Inc. , No. 19-cv-8924 DDP (GJSx), 2021 WL 5178475, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2021) (). Accordingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial