DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV-25-002651·stanislaus·Civil·Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Hearing todayGRANTED in the reduced amount of $18,846.11

DAVIS, JONATHAN vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiff's Motion to Determine the Amount of Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses to be Paid by Defendant

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$18,846.11$17,885$961.11$32,666.50$33,627.61

Parties

PlaintiffJONATHAN DAVIS
DefendantGENERAL MOTORS LLC

Ruling

Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings September 01, 2026 The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-25-002651 - DAVIS, JONATHAN vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff's Motion to Determine the Amount of Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses to be Paid by Defendant - GRANTED in the reduced amount of $18,846.11.

Plaintiff's critique of the opposition's failure to identify Plaintiff accurately is well-taken. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion in the reduced amount of $18,846.11, which is comprised of $17,885 in attorney's fees and $961.11 in costs. Moving party to serve and submit a proposed order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Plaintiff filed the instant action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act on March 21, 2025. After the parties settled on the merits, Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 8, 2026, requesting $32,666.50 in attorney's fees and $961.11 in costs, for a total award of $33,627.61.

"[T]he reasonable hourly rate in this case is that charged by consumer attorneys practicing in the local legal community." (Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1157.) Plaintiff's exhibits attaching rulings from other Superior Courts are not availing as the Court may not consider them for any purpose. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 fn.2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Even if the Court could consider these, the use of state court cases without a survey showing rates awarded in comparable counties renders such information unhelpful to the Court.

The Court finds that four hours for replying to the instant motion is excessive and will include only two of the four requested hours in the lodestar calculation. The Court adopts General Motors' recommendations for hourly amounts as consistent with the going rate in the county. Christine Morano is listed as a "paralegal" but appears to have been an attorney throughout this case; the entry is stricken. This leaves: Dillavon 18.9 hours at $500 per hour Youssefi: 10.7 hours at $500 per hour Jacobs 1.4 hours at $500 per hour Paralegal: 15.9 hours at $150 per hour Totalling: $17,885. The Court finds the stated costs and expenses in the amount of $961.11 are reasonable given the nature of the case.

CV-25-003510 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs MARTINEZ, LOLO BANUELOS - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment, if Entered: CCP 473(b) - DENIED with prejudice.

There is no proof of service of the motion on file, the motion is untimely, and the declaration does not show good cause. The Court lacks authority to grant the motion. In addition, the motion is procedurally improper.

The instant motion is Defendant's second motion to set aside default and default judgment. Defendant's prior May 14, 2026 motion to set aside default and default judgment was denied because no service of the motion was on file, the declaration did not show good cause, and the motion was untimely. Defendant did not seek leave to refile the same motion. The Court directs the clerk to give notice of this ruling and also of the Court's July 7, 2026 ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1019.5.)

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