DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24VECV01658·la·Civil·Lemon Law
Hearing in about 2 hoursGRANTED as modified: $1,268.94 in costs, $12,975 for the work of Lara, $6,540 for the work of Inscore and $1,625 for the work of Yeck, a final award of $22,408.94.

Hernandez v. FCA US, LLC

Motion for Attorney's Fees

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
B
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$57,159.42$1,268.94$14,288.44$8,287.83$14,272.50$12,975$7,849$6,540$2,437.50$1,625$22,408.94

Parties

PlaintiffHernandez
DefendantFCA US, LLC

Attorneys

Larafor Plaintiff
Inscorefor Plaintiff
Yeckfor Plaintiff

Ruling

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).

Hernandez v. FCA US, Case no. 24VECV01658 Hearing date September 1, 2026 Plaintiff Hernandez's Motion for Attorney's Fees Plaintiff Hernandez sued defendant FCA US, LLC for alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act. The matter settled on 1/13/26. Plaintiff moves for $57,159.42 in attorney and paralegal fees and $1,268.94 in costs. Defendant opposes the requested attorney and paralegal fees only. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees but argue the requested fees are unreasonable in a straightforward lemon-law matter which settled without significant motion or trial practice.

Defendants argue no lodestar multiplier should be awarded and assert the rates and hours sought should be reduced for an award of $14,288.44. Plaintiff argues the nature, complexity and contingent basis of this case necessitate the fees sought, plus a 1.5 lodestar multiplier. Decl. Inscore, paras. 3, 17. This was a basic lemon law case in which no depositions were taken, no pretrial motions were heard and which settled prior to commencement of trial. Counsel requests 120.35 attorney hours and 77.97 paralegal hours.

See Decl. Inscore, exh.

1. In this straightforward matter, there is no basis for the court to award over 200 hours, nor a multiplier. Plaintiff requests $150-$200/hour for work by paralegals Ulloa, Quiroga, Salinas and Figueroa. See Decl. Inscore, exh.

1. Plaintiff requests approximately 77.97 hours, totaling $8,287.83. Id. Plaintiff argues the fees sought for paralegal work are reasonable. Purely clerical or administrative tasks are not subject to an award of fees. See Save Our Uniquely Rural Community Environment v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1187. The court strikes the entirety of the $8,287.83 in paralegal fees. Plaintiff requests $550/hour for counsel Lara. Decl. Inscore, exh. 1; Decl. Panzarella, para.

5. Plaintiff requests 25.95 hours for Lara's work, totaling $14,272.50. This is unreasonable; the court reduces the rate to $500/hour, but grants the full hours requested, for an award of $12,975. Plaintiff requests $600/hour for counsel Inscore. Decl. Inscore, exh.

1. Plaintiff requests 13.08 hours for Inscore's work, totaling $7,849. This is unreasonable for the reasons stated above; the court reduces the rate to $500/hour, but grants the full hours requested, for an award of $6,540. Plaintiff requests $750/hour for counsel Yeck. Decl. Inscore, exh.

1. Plaintiff requests

3.25 hours for Yeck's work, totaling $2,437.50. This is unreasonable; the court reduces the rate to $500/hour, but grants the full hours requested, for an award of $1,625. An award of 120 hours of attorney time at $500/hour, plus costs, is reasonable in this matter. GRANTED as modified: $1,268.94 in costs, $12,975 for the work of Lara, $6,540 for the work of Inscore and $1,625 for the work of Yeck, a final award of $22,408.94. Payable within 30 days. | Home -->)" -->

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