Armando Temoltzi-Ordonez v. Orange Coast Auto Group, LLC and FCA US LLC

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 316) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 316 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

This case is a lemon law action. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Armando Temoltzi-Ordonez filed a complaint against Defendants Orange Coast Auto Group, LLC and FCA US LLC. The complaint alleged four causes of action stemming from Plaintiff's purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On April 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees. On August 13, 2026, Defendant FCA US LCC filed an opposition. On August 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $47,272. The Court notes that there is a motion to tax costs set for hearing on September 1, 2026, and costs will therefore be considered at that hearing and not as part of this motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Song Beverley Consumer Warranty Act, if a buyer prevails in the action, the buyer is allowed to recover costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended. (Civ. Code Sec. 1794, subd. (d).) The determination of a reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) When assessing the amount of any attorney's fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the "lodestar" method.

Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of time ¿ reasonably spent ¿ and the reasonable hourly compensation ¿ of each attorney. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); see also Meister v. Regents of University of California ¿ (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 [holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation].) A plaintiff's verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (See Hadley v.

Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Counsel has the burden of providing the reasonable number of hours devoted to the litigation, through declarations, or redacted or unredacted timesheets or billing records. (See Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1325.) "[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous." (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.) "A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case. . . ." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In an unlimited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 60 days after service of a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or 180 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104, subd. (a)(1).) "A voluntary dismissal is 'effectively a "judgment'" within the meaning of the rule prescribing the time to appeal." (Hatlevig v. General Motors LLC (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 644, 649.) Therefore, "[a] voluntary dismissal, though not appealable, starts the clock running on the time to move for attorney fees when the dismissal concludes the litigation and triggers a right to fees." (Ibid.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant filed several evidentiary objections to the declaration of Roger Kirnos. The Court rules on these objections as follows: OVERRULED: Nos. 1-2, 4, 6-15 SUSTAINED: No. 3 (relevance, argumentative, lacking personal knowledge and foundation); No. 5 as to the last sentence only (relevance, argumentative). Plaintiff also filed several evidentiary objections to the declaration of Amy E. Burke. The Court rules on these objections as follows: OVERRULED: Nos. 1, 2, 3 SUSTAINED: n/a

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff seeks $76,254 in attorney's fees and costs, which is $50,836 in lodestar fees and a 1.5 multiplier. The Court will award $47,272 in attorney's fees.

Reasonable Rates

When considering each attorney's history, experience, and expertise, the Court finds the listed hourly rates reasonable. Lead attorney Roger Kirnos currently works at an hourly rate of $600/hr. (See Kirnos Decl., P. 27.) Kirnos is a graduate of Southwestern University School of Law and is admitted to practice in California. (See id. at P. 23.) Kirnos is the managing partner at Knight Law Group, LLP. (See ibid.) Kirnos has been handling consumer and lemon law claims since 2013 and was admitted to the California Bar in 2012. (See id. at P.P. 23, 24.)

Alongside Kirnos, there were 21 other attorneys, law clerks and paralegals who worked on this case. (See Kirnos Decl., P.P. 28 (a)-(u).) These individuals come from several different law schools in California, Delaware, and Puerto Rico. (See ibid.) These individuals' hourly rates range from $145-$600. (See id. at Exh. A, pp. 12-13.) While this is a large number of personnel to be working on the case, the Court recognizes that the case has lasted over six years and that turnover in laws firms is somewhat inevitable.

Given each individual's history, experience and expertise, the Court finds the stated hourly rates reasonable. (See PLCM Group v. Drexler ¿ (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

Reasonable Hours

The Court will award $47,272 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff's counsel requests fees for 134.9 hours working on this case, which includes 4.5 anticipated hours for reviewing the opposition brief to this motion, preparing a reply brief and preparing for and appearing at the hearing. This translates to $54,701 in attorney's fees. (See Kirnos Decl., Exh. A, p. 13.) Plaintiffs seek $50,836 after subtracting sanctions paid by Defendant towards specified fees earlier in the case. (See Kirnos Decl., par. 2.) Defendant requests the Court reduce or outright eliminate specific billing entries because they are unreasonable and excessive. After examination, the Court generally finds the claimed time incurred to be reasonable but will strike or reduce the following time entries:

1. Strike "SS" 7/22/21 time entry as duplicative and unnecessary · Reduced from 0.8 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $216

2. Strike "SS" 7/23/21 time entry as excessive and unnecessary · Reduced from 0.5 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $135

3. Strike "JKM" 12/27/22 time entry as unnecessary administrative work · Reduced from 0.1 hours to 0, equaling a reduction of $45

4. Reduce "PJ" 2/28/23 time entry as excessive · Reduced from 1.3 hours for attending a status conference to 0.5 hours, equaling a reduction of $236

5. Strike "KC" 3/17/23 time entry as unnecessary administrative work · Reduced from 0.1 to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $37.50

6. Reduced "AL" 3/29/23 & 3/30/23 time entries to prepare for depo as excessive · Reduced from 3.6 hours to 3 hours, equaling a reduction of $600

7. Strike "ZP" 11/28/23 time entry for drafting/saving results of hearing as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.2 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $85

8. Strike "ZP" 2/2/24 time entry for drafting/saving results of hearing as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.3 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $127.50

9. Strike "AL" 4/12/2024 time entry for reviewing draft of motion as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.7 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $280

10. Strike "LS" 5/13-15, 19/25 time entries for preparing pdf files as unnecessary administrative work · Reduced from 5 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $812

11. Strike "GP" 5/23/25 time entry for call with Zach as unnecessary internal communications · Reduced from 0.2 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $120

12. Strike "ZP" 6/2/25 time entry for drafting/saving results of hearing as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.2 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $95

13. Strike "CAM" 11/20/25 time entries for entering results of hearing as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.2 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $80

14. Strike "JKM" 1/14/26 time entry for internal communications · Reduced from 0.4 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $220

15. Reduce "CWR" 1/15/26 time entry as excessive travel time · Reduced from 3.7 hours to 2 hours, equaling a reduction of $722.50

16. Strike 1/15/26 time entry for drafting/saving results of hearing as unnecessary · Reduced from 0.3 hours to 0 hours, equaling a reduction of $127.50

In sum, there will be a total reduction of $3,564 in claimed fees. Therefore, Plaintiff will be awarded $47,272 in attorney's fees.

III. Lodestar Multiplier

The Court will not apply a lodestar multiplier. Once the court determines the total lodestar amount, said amount may be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including "(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (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.) ¿ Here, Plaintiff requests a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 because of the contingent nature of this case, the length of the case, the preclusion of other employment, counsel's display of skill/experience, and the results achieved. (See Motion, pp. 12:13-13:21.)

However, based on the non-complexity of this case and the high occurrence of settlements with fees paid, the Court does not find the multiplier reasonable or necessary. Therefore, the Court will not apply Plaintiff's requested 1.5 lodestar multiplier.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $47,272 in attorney's fees. | Home -->)" -->