Page 1
C.A. Rejects Challenge to Judge’s Method in Setting Attorney Fees in Lemon-Law Case
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district on Friday rejected the assertion of a woman that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Randolph Hammock was confused as to applying the lodestar method of computing attorney fees or refused to use it, saying that the transcript belies her contention.
Plaintiff Lady Bess Fishback received recompense through a settlement in a lemon law case and sought $40,113.75 in attorney fees, plus a 25 percent multiplier—or $10,028.44—for a total of $50,142.19. Hammock found that the number of hours Los Angeles attorney David A. Goldsmith devoted to the case were excessive.
He said in his minute order:
“The Court finds the hourly rate of $475.00 hour to be reasonable…, with the accompanying observation that attorneys who bill at these hourly rate should not need to research routine issue of law and should resort to boilerplate when it will serve the client’s purposes.
“Plaintiff attached the billing records for Plaintiffs counsel as exhibits to the Goldsmith Declaration, reflecting a lodestar amount of $40,113.75. The Court notes that there were only two causes of action asserted in the Complaint, which were of a routine nature in this type of action, and there was no law and motion heard. Indeed, the case settled about 6 months after this case was filed.
“In light of the foregoing, the court finds that the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this litigation, including the reply and appearance in connection with the instant motion, is $20,000. The Court declines to award any lodestar multiplier to these attorney’s fees, based upon the relative non-complexity of this rather routine lemon law case.”
Opinion by Kalra
Affirmance came in an unpublished opinion by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Upinder S. Kalra, sitting on assignment to Div. Three. Referring to the transcript of the hearing before Hammock, he wrote:
“Here, the trial court expressly explained that the claimed fees were unreasonable due to a number of factors, including the case’s lack of complexity [stating ‘this was like shooting fish in a barrel’], the cookie-cutter nature of the litigation [‘you probably imposed the same discovery that you impose on every case’], the absence of any law and motion proceedings (other than the motion for attorney fees), the limited discovery that was conducted, and the short duration of the case before it settled.”
Kalra noted that Hammock affirmed at the hearing that he did employ the lodestar method. The jurist said that Hammock “reiterated this point” by adding a handwritten comment to his tentative ruling. It says:
“Once again, the Court does not intend to ‘cut’ or ‘discount’ any time/fees claimed by [plaintiff’s] Attorneys. This ruling only suggests that the time expended was not ‘reasonable,’ given the simplistic nature of this case.”
Notion Dispelled
Karla remarked:
“This dispels any suggestion that the trial court misunderstood or misapplied the lodestar method. The trial court unequivocally found that the hours expended were not reasonable, and therefore awarded fees at the requested hourly rate for the number of hours that it deemed to be reasonable.”
The case is Fishback v. FCA US, LLC, B298677.
Attorneys on appeal were Santa Ana attorney Martin W. Anderson and Goldsmith of Goldsmith West, for Fishback, and Lisa Perrochet, John A. Taylor Jr., and Steven S. Fleischman of Horvitz & Levy, along with Matthew M. Proudfoot of Gates, Gonter, Guy, Proudfoot & Muench for the defendants.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company