Fourth District, Division 1 Sustains Lower Court Determination Based on Its Experience With Hourly Rates.
In Cauchon v. Forest River, Inc., Case Nos. D053864/D054433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 9, 2010) (unpublished), mobilehome purchasers did well in a Song-Beverly Act Warranty Act suit with a mandatory fee-shifting statute in favor of prevailing plaintiffs. Purchasers recovered compensatory damages of $205,700.86, $3,143.23 in incidental damages, and statutory penalties of $52,211.00. Then, the trial court awarded them $170,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested lodestar of $194,716.50, $10,000 for fees on fees, and a requested .6 multiplier [the multiplier being denied].) Defendant appealed.
Not so good on appeal for the defense.
Entitlement was not an issue, because reasonable attorney’s fees are recoverable by a buyer connected with the successful commencement and prosecution of a Song-Beverly Act claim. (Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 4 Cal.App.4th 807, 813 (1992).)
Detailed billings were submitted in support of the lodestar, with the lower court agreeing with some defense reductions for improper billing and duplication, reducing the requested award by $24,716.20.
The lodestar hourly rates of $165-295 over periods of time were reasonable, with plaintiffs’ attorneys presenting evidence of rates charged by other consumer attorneys in parts of California such as Northern California, La Cresenta, Fresno, and Bellflower ranging from $350-$515 for partners and $250-$375 for associates in this area of the law.
A moving party can prove the appropriate market rate to be used in calculating the lodestar through its own affidavits, without additional evidence. (Davis v. City of San Diego, 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 903 (2003).) However, the trial court could also draw upon its own experience in the legal community in settling on the reasonable hourly rates, which was done here. Fee award affirmed on appeal.