BUN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

24CV068454: BUN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nath Chan Bun (Plaintiff) CRS# 505211524942 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 08/06/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion of Plaintiff Nath Chan Bun (“Plaintiff”) for Attorney Fees is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (d).) Based on a review of the itemized billing invoice submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, an assessment of the skill of each attorney involved and the necessary skill required for the tasks identified in Plaintiff’s invoice, the Court awards Plaintiff a total amount of $7,272.30, as described below.

Here, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) does not contest that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action or that Plaintiff is entitled to “reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) The Opposition focuses only on whether the attorney’s fees sought by Plaintiff are “reasonable.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW

A. Motion for Attorney Fees – Legal Standard

The prevailing party to an action is entitled to costs, which include attorney’s fees when authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).)

B. Calculation of Attorney Fees in Contingency Cases

The lodestar method is widely accepted in California for calculating statutory attorney’s fees where a case is taken on a contingency basis. (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 351.)

To calculate a fee award, a trial court must first determine the lodestar—the number of hours reasonably expended, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. (Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 978, 983.) The court may then adjust the lodestar, based on various factors, to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Ibid.)

The following factors may be considered in adjusting the lodestar:

(1) novelty or difficulty of the questions involved, 24CV068454: BUN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nath Chan Bun (Plaintiff) CRS# 505211524942 in Department 520

(2) skill displayed,

(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.

(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

In contingent fee cases, a fee enhancement compensates the lawyer for having taken the case despite the risk of receiving no payment in the event of a loss or the risk of a delayed payment in the event of a victory. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 1132-1133, 1137-1138.) The enhancement “is intended to approximate market-level compensation for” cases taken on contingency, “which typically includes a premium for the risk of nonpayment or delay in payment of attorney fees.” (Id. at p. 1138.)

C. Standard of Review

Review of a trial court's award of attorney’s fees is “highly deferential” and may only be reversed only for an abuse of discretion because the trial court is in the best position to judge the value of professional services rendered and the attorney’s performance. (Ventura v. ABM Industries (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 275; Sonoma Land Trust, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at pp. 983-984; Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132.)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Honda Civic SI 4D on or about April 20, 2022. (Complaint ¶ 10.) Approximately two years later, on March 20, 2024, Plaintiff sued Defendant, asserting Song- Beverly claims for breach of express and implied warranties. (ROA.)

Plaintiff propounded a first set of discovery on April 19, 2024 - Defendant responded on June 21, 2025. (Maissian Decl. ¶ 8-9, Ex. E, F.) Plaintiff propounded a second set of discovery on April 22, 2024 - Defendant responded on June 10, 2025. (Maissian Decl. ¶ 12, 14, Ex. I. K.) Plaintiff thereafter served a meet and confer letter for further responses. Regarding deposition of Defendant's PMK, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter to request the PMK and then notice of the deposition on April 18, 2025. (Maissian Decl. ¶ 10-11, Ex.

G, H.) Defendant served objections in May 2025. In December 2025, Defendant noticed Plaintiff's deposition and sought a vehicle inspection. The parties also engaged in noticing depositions of experts and respective objections. (Maissian Decl. ¶ 16-20, Ex. M-Q.) Plaintiff's deposition was not taken and the vehicle inspection did not occur. It does not appear that the parties engaged in any motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV068454: BUN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nath Chan Bun (Plaintiff) CRS# 505211524942 in Department 520 practice.

The parties settled in January 2026 with a notice of settlement filed on January 8, 2026. Settlement funds were disbursed on January 30, 2026.

The litigation - from complaint filing to notice of settlement was less than two years. Neither party appears to argue substantial delay in litigating the case, agreeing to settlement, and providing settlement funds. Both parties agree that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees and costs.

ANALYSIS

Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action or that he is entitled to “reasonable attorney’s fees” under the Song-Beverly Act and under the Settlement Agreement, which allows for attorney’s fees "reasonably incurred by Plaintiff in the commencement and prosecution of this action[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1794, subd. (d).) Plaintiff seeks a total of $16,474.80, consisting of (1) $12,837.50 for attorney fees; and (2) $612.30 in costs, (plus $2,500.00 + $525.00 to review opposition, draft reply, and appear for hearing with a court reporter). (MPA.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff is entitled to no more than $5,385.39, as the claimed fees are unsupported, unauthorized given the 998 offer, and unreasonable. (Oppo.)

The starting point is the calculation of the lodestar: the reasonable hourly rate times the reasonable number of hours. The question for the Court is whether the number of hours incurred were reasonably incurred in a case involving no motion and limited discovery work with the number of persons involved in the case. This is a simple Lemon Law case with standardized pleadings and discovery requests.

For work performed in Lemon Law cases such as this one, this Court will therefore approve a rate of $350 per hour instead of the proposed hourly rates ranging from $500 to $625 because the work is not complex. (MPA.) That being said, the Court has reviewed the itemized time entries from Plaintiff’s counsel and will allow Plaintiff to recover for a total of 17.6 hours.

Given these factors and the likelihood of duplicative billing, the Court reduces the lodestar and uses the amount of $350 as the average hourly rate.

No multiplier is appropriate because a settlement was achieved after no motion practice and a minimal exchange of discovery.

The Court therefore awards Plaintiffs a total amount of $7,272.30 for fees and costs in connection with this litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032; 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B); 1794, subd. (d).) This amount consists of $6,160.00 in attorney’s fees (for the 17.6 hours incurred, at the Court’s approved rate of $350 per hour) plus $500.00 for remaining work on the motion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV068454: BUN vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Nath Chan Bun (Plaintiff) CRS# 505211524942 in Department 520 (reviewing opposition/ filing reply), and costs of $612.30.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on August 7, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on August 6, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.