Ortega v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

condition that you had in April of 2021 that formed the basis of your request to work remotely, for example, had you been diagnosed with something else where you said, you know, that is a reason why I should work from home? A. I don't remember. Q. At the time in April of 2021 were you treating for any other conditions? A. I don't remember."].)

In opposition, Plaintiff submits a self-serving declaration alleging worry and anxiety regarding COVID-19 exposure at her school site, as well as a 2024 billing receipt referencing a PTSD diagnosis code. Subjective fear of illness does not constitute a qualifying physical disability under FEHA without admissible medical evidence of an actual physiological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity. (Allos v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 822, 836-837; Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 894, 908-910.)

As to the reference to PTSD, a billing entry from 2024 does not establish that Plaintiff suffered from a qualifying disability in 2021 when the interactive process occurred and the accommodation request was evaluated. Under FEHA, liability depends on what the employer knew and the information provided at the time of the accommodation decision.

Moreover, a diagnostic billing code on a receipt or invoice is not an expert medical opinion. Without a supporting declaration or sworn testimony from a qualified medical provider explaining the diagnosis, its clinical basis, and specific functional limitations, a raw billing code is inadmissible hearsay for the truth of the diagnosis.

Because Plaintiff failed to show triable issues as to whether she suffered an underlying disability, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The objections to the evidence discussed herein are sustained; all other objections are overruled as immaterial. Moving party to give notice.

Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 310 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 Case Name: Ortega v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. Case No.: 24STCV28034 Matter: Motion for Attorney Fees Moving Party: Plaintiff Jacqueline J. Ortega 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 Jacqueline J. Ortega now seeks "$16,478.13. This amount consists of (1) $10,198.50 in attorneys' fees for Quill & Arrow, LLP []; (2) a 1.25 multiplier enhancement on the attorney fees (or $2,549.63); and (3) an additional $4,000.00 for Plaintiff's counsel to review Defendant's Opposition; draft the Reply; and attend the hearing on this Motion." 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 Court will not award a multiplier because, among other reasons, this was not a novel or complex matter. Further, as there was no opposition and the time billed for the instant Motion was sufficient, the Court will not award the $4,000 request to review the opposition and draft a reply. Finally, the Court will reduce the rates of Kevin Jacobson and Stephen Basinger to $550.

The Motion is granted in part. The Court awards $10,194. Moving party to give notice.