DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24STCV10684·la·Civil·Lemon law
Hearing in 1 dayGRANTED in part

Kalajian v. General Motors LLC, et al.

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
310
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$34,718$1,643.14$25,882.50

Parties

PlaintiffKrikor Kalajian
DefendantGeneral Motors LLC

Ruling

Case No.: 24STCV10684 Matter: Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Moving Party: Plaintiff Krikor Kalajian Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above. This is a lemon law matter. The parties have settled, and Plaintiff Krikor Kalajian now seeks $34,718 in attorney fees and $1,643.14 in costs. There is no opposition. California courts utilize the lodestar method to determine a reasonable fee award, multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate (Ketchum v.

Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132). A court may adjust the lodestar figure downward based on factors such as lack of success, inefficiency, or over-litigation (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 92). The lodestar figure is based on 60.9 hours at attorney rates ranging from $525 to $695. The Court reduces all rates to $500 per hour. Also, given the lack of activity on the docket, the Court will apply a 15% reduction to the lodestar figure. The Court will award the requested costs.

The Motion is granted in part. The Court awards $25,882.50 in fees and $1,643.14 in costs. Moving party to give notice.

Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 310 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Case Name: Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Young, et al.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share