BATOON vs TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.

26CV172056: BATOON vs TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Joseph Batoon (Plaintiff) CRS# 951144107474 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 09/04/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Joseph Batoon on 08/14/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Joseph Batoon (“Plaintiff”) filed this Song-Beverly action on February 19, 2026. Plaintiff alleges that the 2024 Toyota Tundra he purchased on April 7, 2024 from Defendant Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) was defective. On April 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a notice of acceptance of Defendant’s settlement offer made under Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The 998 offer permitted Plaintiff to bring a noticed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d).

Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on August 14, 2026, which sought a total of $19,852.20, representing a total of 24.9 hours billed at $615 per hour, 0.2 hours billed at $525 per hour, and 4.5 hours billed at $250 per hour ($16,543.50) with a multiplier of 1.2 and costs of $1,135.49.

LEGAL STANDARD The prevailing party to an action is entitled to costs, which include attorney’s fees when authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032; 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) Under the Song Beverly Act,”[i]f the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.” (Civil Code Section 1794(d)).

DISCUSSION Here, the parties agree that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and therefore entitled to attorney’s fees that were reasonably incurred in connection with this litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B); Civil Code Section 1794(d)). The award of attorneys fees to prevailing parties in Song-Beverly actions is mandatory. (Id.) The dispute is over whether the amount of the fee request is reasonable.

Defendant contends that Mr. Kauffman’s hourly rate of $615 is excessive for this type of case. The court agrees. While Mr. Kauffman submits a declaration indicating that other courts have accepted fee requests with this billing rate, that does not require this court to do so. Defendant contends that, where fee-shifting statutes are involved, the reasonable hourly rate is tied to prevailing non-contingent market rates for that work, citing Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122. The court finds this to be proper given the statutory fee-shifting inherent in Song-Beverley cases.

Defendant then suggests its own hourly rates as an appropriate marker for calculating the lodestar. The court finds the suggested rates ($235-$350) to be on the low side. Instead, the 26CV172056: BATOON vs TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Joseph Batoon (Plaintiff) CRS# 951144107474 in Department 22 court reduces Mr. Kauffman’s hourly rate from $615 to $475, and Mr. Tan’s associate billing rate from $525 to $375. The court also reduces the paralegal hourly rate from $250 to $150.

Defendant also contends that Mr. Kauffman’s billing entries are excessive given the short duration of the case, which did not include complex discovery or motion practice. While Defendant’s contention has some merit, the court notes that thorough case work-up at the outset of litigation can reduce costs in the longer term for cases that do not promptly settle and counsel does not always know in the beginning stages of litigation whether early settlement is likely. However, the court does find that Mr. Kauffman’s billing entries relating to coordinating the surrender of the subject vehicle to be excessive given that such tasks can be, and were, handled by a paralegal. The court thus reduces Mr. Kauffman’s total billed hours by 1.0 hours, for a revised total of 23.9 hours. The court does not find any other entries to be plainly unreasonable.

Defendant contests Plaintiff’s use of a 1.2 lodestar multiplier. The court agrees. Given that this case did not require complex or voluminous discovery or motion practice prior to settling, the court does not find that Plaintiff’s request for a multiplier is warranted and will not apply it.

Therefore, because the court reduces Plaintiff’s requested fees by a total of 1 hour, the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion as follows: Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees for 23.9 hours, at $475/hour, 0.2 hours at $375/hour, and 4.5 hours at $150/hour with no multiplier, resulting in a total fee award of $12,102.50. The court also grants the motion as to Plaintiff’s requested costs of $1,135.49. Thus, the total award is $13,237.99.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing.

This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.