Judge Hesseltine Issued October 1, 2026 Tentative Rulings On Fee Applications.
Although we usually post on California appellate opinions, we found that Orange County Superior Court Judge David J. Hesseltine issued some instructive tentative rulings on Song-Beverly Act fee applications which may be of interest (although we have not confirmed if the tentative rulings became the “final” orders).
First up is Hucek v. FCA US, LLC, OCSC Case No. 2020-01147584 (Oct. 1, 2026 tentative ruling), which involved a settlement between the parties and a stipulated dismissal with retention of jurisdiction. The superior court clerk served a copy of a minute order dismissing the case on August 30, 2024. However, plaintiff waited until April 29, 2026 to file a motion for attorney’s fees. Judge Hesseltine denied the fee motion as being untimely. Relying on Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC, 118 Cal.App.5th 644, 649 (2026) and earlier cases to the same effect, the Court found that the time deadlines under CRC 3.1702(d) [60 or 180 days] had lapsed long ago, with no satisfactory explanation for why the fee motion was filed so long down the line. (As an aside, he also chastised plaintiff for citing to a Los Angeles trial court decision, given that it had no precedential value.)
Second up is Halabi v. BMW of North America, LLC, OCSC Case No. 2025-01454261 (Oct. 1, 2026 tentative ruling), where another Song-Beverly Act plaintiff moved for fees. There, the fee motion was timely because it was brought within 180 days after a dismissal, with the defendant identifying no earlier notice of entry to trigger the shorter 60- day deadline. Plaintiff sought $35,406.47 in fees, inclusive of a .3 positive multiplier. Judge Hesseltine granted plaintiff $16,496 in fees, after doing this: (1) sustaining a $575 hourly rate for a lead attorney although saying it was at the higher end for attorneys in consumer cases of this nature; (2) reducing for administrative/clerical tasks, excessive and repetitive settlement administration/communications work, and excessive “fees on fees;” and (3) denying a positive multiplier.