Preview
ORIGINAL
HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C.
we
Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349)
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
DB
Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fi i E D
Telephone:
WwW
(310) 887-1333 Superior Court of Callfornia
Facsimile: (310) 887-1334 County of Placer
BP
E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com DEC 04 2018
ae Jake Chatters
Attorneys for
DW
Plaintiff, cutive Officer & Clerk
ANNA P. KING SH. Lucatuorto, Deputy
ONY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
0
ANNA P. KING,
CO
Case No.: SCV0038637
ee
Plaintiff
KF
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION &
ee
PB
MOTION FOR COUNSEL HACKLER,
VS. DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO & NOVAK,
Ww
P.C.’"S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
me
=<
BP
Pee Niet MOTOR. AMERICA, INC., a [Filed Concurrently with Memorandum of "F]
Wn
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through Points and Authorities in Support Thereof a
10, mnchistye, Declaration of Sepehr Daghighian in Suppo
DH
of Motion]
Rm
Defendants. Date: January 3, 2020
ON
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 31
OD
DBD
—RO
KF&
NO
NYnd
NO
Ww
NO
FF
HN
MW
NO
NO
NWN
NO
ao
NO
-|-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 3, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the
NYO
Placer County Superior Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California
W
95678, Plaintiff Anna P. King (‘Plaintiff’) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an award
ee
NHN
of his counsel Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C.’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil
Code § 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff moves this Court as the
Dn
prevailing party pursuant to the Judgment on Jury Verdict entered by this Court on September 6,
YH
2019, confirming ajury verdict and award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant HYUNDAI
Oo
MOTOR AMERICA, INC.
So
Plaintiff's counsel Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. now move for an order
CO
hh
awarding attorney’s fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $91,700.00. Plaintiff also
KF
—_|_—hlh
requests a modest “lodestar” enhancement of .5, in the amount of $45,850.00, for a total of
HO
St
$137,550.00 as the attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred.
WOW
This motion is based upon the memorandum of points and authorities filed concurrently
BP
ee
herewith, upon the declarations filed concurrently herewith, upon such evidence, oral and
Wn
Fe
DB
documentary, that may be presented at the hearing, and upon the entire record of the case.
Fe
NI
Fe
Oo
Dated: December2, 2019
FF
ODO
He
Respectfully submitted,
FD
HN
KF&
NO
Ne
NO
Sepeh ighian, Esq.
WY
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
PN
ANNA P. KING
fF
NH
vA
NO
Dn
NO
NY
wo
Oa
NO
25.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
KF HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C.
Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349)
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500
NY
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 887-1333
W
Facsimile: (310) 887-1334
Fe
E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com
HA
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ANNA P. KING
Dn
NY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
COUNTY OF PLACER
So
ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637
CO
KS
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
OF
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
NY
vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL
WY
HACKLER, DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO
& NOVAK, P.C.’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
FP
Ee
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a ° 8
California Corporation; and DOES 1| through Date: January 3, 2020
Fe
Hn
10, inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m.
FE
Dept. 31
NQH
Fe
Defendants.
Oo
He
BO
He
COD
NN
K&
NO
NY
WN
NY
BP
NH
AN
NYO
DBO
HNO
wo
oN
bw
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NY
INTRODUCTION o.oo cccccceccseneenseeseesessessesaecaeeeseeseeneeesaessecseeseesseresseessseatereeseeseeaes
l
WW
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..0...occcccccecsecessesseeenseesecseesseceeeseeesecsecseeesesseseaeesseaseaseesesssees
2
Fe
A. HDMN’s Association and Preparation For Trial ...........cccccecseesceseeeeceeeeseeseeseeseees
4
I. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS 200. cccccceeeceeseesseeeeeeneeeeseeceeeeeeensecneecseeeeseeneeeeeeaeeaees
4
nH
A. HDMN Is Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in thisAction..........c:ccccccccccscesseeteeeteeseeeees
4
Hn
B. The Hourly Rates Sought by HDMN’s Attorneys Are Reasonable.................006 4
YN
le The Nature and Complexity of the Litigation Support the Attorney’s Fees
RGQUCSIC oscssuzce
sxsncnave
winsome suai ca teaics
tatacabs sa spaaceAttien
ahaanaOR 6
Aa
Ds The Firm’s SkillJustifies the Amount of Attorney’s Fees Sought ............
7
3. The Verdict Amount Does Not Limit the Attorney’s Fee Recovery.......... 8
0
CG. Plaintiff Should Be Granted a Lodestar Multiplier ..........cece eeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeneeeees
9
OC
ee
IV. CONCLUSION .....0....eeceeessessecsscessecsseesecesceeseeseeeeeaeeesecenseeeesnceseseesasoeensenenseesensenenseeeners
11
KF
NY
Ree
WY
FP
Hn
DH
OHNH
mm
ODO
TODO
RO
NO
K§
KN
WN
KN
BRP
KH
NW
HN
OW
BH
NO
CoN
Oo
ois
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
LO
WD
Cazares v. Saenz
ee
208 Cal. App.3d 279 (1989) oo...ecccssssssssssssssssssssvssssssssssscscscesrsssesesescsessasesessasacacacscscsceees
12
Nn
City of Riverside v. Rivera
DB
(1986) 477 WS, S61 sssssssssansiisassintnenonennesnanencaevmnene
pe cecutursnvssrarennanawawnusuuecearneaaeweneunseusvewestasacaxse
NY
Dietrich v. Dietrich
Oo
(1953) 41, Cal 2409 ccccasvasnnsana
sesis 5. ksihansannaneneonnenenee
nvenuseneng
yeteonsokssessanseasansbespeanslennoeceTs
So
En Palm, LLC v. Teitler
(2008) 162 Cal
CO
App. 4th 710 vcccssssseusvexsvessnssicianenceenssreesesssenasevannrarenyegoresunsavessegsvnenninntenvensssassens
lu
ee
KF
Goglin v.BMW of North America, LLC
ee
NYO
(2016) 4 Cal. App. Sth 462, 470......cccccccccccscsssscsesscscssesesccscsussecscsecsuscsecassevscasareacaeeacsees
7,8,
WD
we
Graciano v.Robinson Ford Sales
BR
(2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 140 oo. ccc ccccecsessesessccscsscsecsesseesecsecssesecsecsecsecsecseenens
7, 8,9, 11,
nD
Graham vy.DaimlerChrysler Corp.
NDB
(2009) 34: CAL AUR S33 ecrccsnanaenaicesensesinssins
sinents
shsich isd0ktank
senannewnannacannnannavmessnornennrswemceqamvcee
6,7,
Hadley v. Repel
Oo
(EBS) PO) Cal A026 O77 eecrenssmenssmesnncsanacmsasensewemcestemenmncenon
ssyaisen
caerh.fdsiedioitndh
hsedlnnnarnansemenenes
Oo
Harman y. City and County ofSan Francisco
OS
RO
(2067) U8 Gah AOD AAO T nessconsncerssesensnesanair
estan
towmantener setae, satensirstats.
dsclaes t
KFK
RO
Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ.
Nd
NO
(2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359 ooo cececeeeeeeeesseceeeeseceseeeseeeeeeceseeeseceseeeseseeneeceaeeneeensesseees
We
KN
In re Chiron Corp. Securities Litigation
Fe
NO
No. C-04-4293 VRW, 2007 WL 4249902 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) .......ccccecceceseeeteetteeteees
NW
NO
Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v.Zipes
NWN
NO
(1989) 491 U.S. 754 voeeeeecceecceeeceseeeseeeneeeneeceeeceeeceeeceeeeneeensaeeceeesenseeeeeeeseneseeeesueeenteeeneeens
NO
Jensen v.BMW of North America, Inc.
oN
NO
(1995) 35 CaL APO ARH 112 .........ccreoncmencennrorevennersenneenanonsnnerenennmiiinindhhiaiassnstineak
thsia aaesenmeasesek
-ii-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Ketchum v. Moses
&
(2007) 24 Cal ANG D122, sissscoesssaccrena
acon sercmasnae ease eens seseReNOUNEEREINND 12, 13
YO
La Mesa-Spring Valley School Dist. v. Otsuka
WY
(1962) 37 Gal 2d 309 oiscnccesassoss 2 ose anaemeeareenaeRO 10
FP
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles
aA
(T986) 188 Cal A301. ssvcsxas.sncassssacnessanaunmnnasnxacesassienataanannnesemniislamennsrenndneressennemimemanmaeaennn
8,9
Dn
Mandel v. Lackner
NI
02. Cal. App.30 TAT (1979) ccconsssaccnecnenarcsensnsansmuanessannvmsnwannvesnenasunsssen
nememennaemannmmunnernmianeae
7
wa
Molski v. Arclero Wine Group
Co
(2008) 164 Cal App Ath TRG cesscnsuncanencssancscecumvewarnasmsanasmacamenasssmeeesamnnesconesusemncexnanansaxsun
10
OS
PLCM Group v.Drexler, supra
KF
eee
22 Cal Ath at 1095 ccencmmnmassa cman areas ommmeneanenemnnmanemarnmsammnennssess 8, 12
NY
Reveles v. Ford by the Bay
Ww
(1997) 37 Cal PE FISD ore cccisencnvnseeeneoumrenneaansmemenceecessnencrenmnermrcanneceenmesemmereemanss
6, 7
FP
Re
Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.
na
Re
(2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 785 oo...
ccccecceccccseceeeeseeeeneeeeeeseeeeeeneeesseeesseeeeeeeeenaeees
1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13
HD
ee
Serrano vy.Priest
WOANQI
Re
(1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 (Serrano LID) ..cccccccccccscccescccsseccsssceecesueeeecenaeeeeeseeeceeneeeessaeeeeneeenseeensaeees
12
RR
Serrano v. Unruh
OBO
32 Cal.3d 621 (1982)...
ccccccecccesecceceseeseeseceeeeeeeeeeesecceeecsecsaeeseeseeccseceeseesseseseeesessseeseseeseasenes
7,8
TO
NO
Vo v.Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
KFK§
KN
(2000) 79 Cal. App.4th 440 oo...eccccecsecseeessecssceecsscesecesseessecsseesssecsesessecesssaseseseaseseseaeens
11, ,2
Ne
KN
We
Statutes
NY
Pe
NHN
15 United States Code
NW
Section 2301 et:seq. (Mapiuson Moss. Warrality ACH) scsstsescnsssvesuncsaanvmnoseansececnecanasanrerenezss
11
HN
OW
42 United States Code
BN
wpoO
Section 1988 .....ccccccccccccsscccesscesssceesseeeesecceeeecseeseeecessaeeeseseeeecesesseceseeaeessseesessseeeeeeeesseeeeensees
11
oN
BO
-ili-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
California Code of Civil Procedure
CG FF rescosamen ands oh attdelat
pmnnmeeeomeemnememroeeenwemneucrmemnrenensrmenewanupengvapsgeseraraecesunaserssn
1, 4, 5, 13
NYO
California Code of Civil Procedure
WY
Section 1032(a)(4)......cssssecsscsscecscessessessssssssssscsessssssesssssssesscseeeneessssessessensessenresscessessess
6,7
ee
California Code of Civil Procedure
HN
SOON, POSIT sev canna. anaes ra
sats stain
htinanconnnananwonsnnaensannenwansrannaccuenunannrinensatenantiasiien
drenameenerse14
Dn
California Code of Civil Procedure
ON
SOC, F794 (2 serenosxamessacsennessscssansun
ens
omeowsanin
ent Ki
scesitee
Xs RECA
Sic ead idea cates 6, 7, 14
Co
CO
Treatises
KF
Ree
Pearl, California Attorney Fee Awards
Sections 12. 4A, 12.33 Gitid Ed. 2005) sessassncssacnewsuasaczans
sasmnenumemavss
avenue
mveatsaeunmeesnancneueanis
7
NY
RRR Re
WY
Other Authorities
FP
Senate Report
No. 93-151, Ist Sess., pp. 23-24 (1973) ....ececccccsceesseceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseaeeeeeeenaeeeseesneeeneeenees
11
A
KD
WON
OBO
COD
HNO
KFK&
KN
NYO
NO
WO
KN
Bk
NO
nN
NO
DO
NO
NO
oN
BO
-iv-
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
I. INTRODUCTION
eK
On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff Anna P. King (‘Plaintiff’) purchased a new 2010 Hyundai
NO
Tucson, VIN: KM8JU3ACXAU0I5808 (‘Subject Vehicle”) from HYUNDAI MOTOR
WY
AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant” or “HMA”) for a total purchase price of $32,347.84. Between the
Fe
date of purchase and August 2015, Plaintiff made four (4) service visits for issues with an important
mn
safety feature, the Subject Vehicle’s backup camera, without resolution of the problem. By January
Dn
2016, Plaintiff had come to believe that the Subject Vehicle was a “lemon” under the Song-Beverly
ON
Act (“the Act”), so on January 6, 2016 she contacted HMA Customer Service to request a buyback
under the Act. On or around February 18, 2016, HMA denied Plaintiff's buyback request but offered
oO
to cover the backup camera.
CO
Re
Nearly three (3) years of litigation ensued, culminating in a jury trial in July 2019.
KF
Throughout the litigation, HMA steadfastly maintained that the Subject Vehicle was not a lemon
NY
and that no repurchase or other accommodation was required, while Plaintiff strongly believed
WY
wr
that HMA willfully failed to comply with itswarranty obligations and that civilpenalties were
FF
warranted. HMA made two early settlement overtures but Plaintiff found both attempts to be
nH
vague, ambiguous, uncertain and incomplete, so Plaintiff objected on those grounds while inviting
DH
HMA to mediate, an invitation HMA declined. HMA never remedied the defects identified by
ON
Plaintiff, made no further offers to settle and rejected three settlement offers made by Plaintiff in an
effort to avoid the delays, costs and uncertainties of trial. Without options, Plaintiff's counsel
UO
prepared and tried Plaintiff's case to victory.
RO
CO
Plaintiff's counsel Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. (“HDMN”) prepared this
NO
KH
matter for trialfrom the moment that itassociated in. The efforts and skill demonstrated from HDMN
KN
WN
largely contributed to the excellent result that was obtained. This motion seeks HDMN’s attorney’s
KN
fees incurred inobtaining this exceptional outcome for Ms. King.
PP
KN
HDMN has a proven track records of exceptional settlements and verdicts for Knight Law’s
AN
KH
clients. Therefore, associating HDMN into Knight Law’s cases oftentimes prompts manufacturers
BO
HN
to take the cases more serious and make reasonable settlement offers. Unfortunately, oftentimes
pO
oN
only after trialattorneys are brought into a case, do the manufacturers finally do the right thing and
NO
-|-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
settle these cases. In fact, associating in HDMN regularly results in higher settlements for Knight
Law’s clients because the manufacturers and their lawyers
BO
know HDMN’s reputation for exceptional
trialpreparedness and trialadvocacy.
W
On September 6, 2019, this Court’s Judgment on
BR
Jury Verdict was entered following a trial
which commenced on
WNW
July 1,2019 before Honorable Michael W. Jones. The resulting verdict — the
jury found that the Subject Vehicle did suffer from covered defects that substantially impaired
ND
Plaintiff's use, value or safety, and that HMA did failto conform the vehicle to warranty or replace
or repurchase it aftera reasonable
Oa
number of opportunities, but that HMA’s failure to repurchase
did not warrant civil penalties — presumably
So
did not fully satisfy either party.
The Song-Beverly Act, Civil Code sections 1790, et seg., entitles Ms. King to seek
CO
ee
reasonable attorney’s fees from HMA. Moreover, as the prevailing party in this matter, Plaintiff is
KF
entitled to this noticed motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff now moves for
ee
an order awarding his
NB
counsel HDMN’s attorneys’ fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $91,700.00. Plaintiff
WO
me
also requests a modest “lodestar” enhancement of .5,
BP
in the amount of $45,850.00, for a total of
$137,550.00 as the attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred. (Declaration of Sepehr
WW
Daghighian (“SD Dec.”) § 8, Ex. A.)
DBO
mmm
i, STATEMENT OF FACTS
NQ
A. HDMN’s Association and Preparation For Trial
Oo
mm
Oo
With the absence of any reasonable settlement offer from HMA accounting for itswillful
DBD
violation of the Song-Beverly Act, the case appeared likely to go to trial.(SD Dec., § 11-12, Ex. C.)
RO
Accordingly, in December 2018, Sepehr Daghighian of Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C.
F&
RO
formally associated into the case as lead trial counsel to prepare the case for trial.(/d.)
NO
NY
With trialonly a few months away, HDMN began in earnest analyzing the case file and
Ww
KN
preparing the case for jury trial.(/d., | 13.) Had HMA acted reasonably in settling thismatter sooner,
FF
NO
the need to associate HDMN and all of HMDN’s fees could have been completely avoided. (/d.,§
nN
NO
Plaintiffs would be forced take this matter to trial ifthey
Dn
14.) The message HMA sent was clear,
NO
wanted to receive compensation for the willful violations that HMA committed. (/d.)
NO
oN
HDMN then began preparing for trialby, among other things, preparing trialdocuments, i.e.
NO
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Joint Exhibit List, Joint Witness List, Joint Statement of the Case, Proposed Voir Dire Questions,
eK
Proposed CACTI Jury Instructions, Plaintiffs Special Jury Instructions, and Special Verdict Forms.,
NO
etc.; preparing trial examination outlines, reviewing deposition transcripts and drafting summaries.
W
(Id., 15.) Additionally, HDMN worked with Plaintiff's expert to understand the technical side of
FF
the case and to undercut HMA’s anticipated defenses. (/d. § 16.) Trial counsel also reviewed the
nH
voluminous document production by HMA, analyzing deposition transcripts, preparing notices to
Dn
appear, and otherwise preparing the matter for trial.(Jd.)HDMN also drafted motions inlimine (and
A
oppositions to HMA’s own motions in limine) ahead of the trialdate. (/d.,§ 17.) Again, Plaintiff
wo
benefitted from counsel’s experience in this area of law, as each 6 to 10-page motion required only
Oo
0.5 hours, as opposed to multiple hours for each. (/d.)
CO
On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff took the deposition of HMA’s Person Most Knowledgeables
KK
eee
(“PMK’”) Sandy Zielmosky and Eric Sim. (/d.,§ 18.) Both depositions provided favorable testimony
NY
that undercut HMA’s defense that the issues relating tobackup camera were not covered by the basic
WY
warranty. (/d.) Plaintiff further prepared for thismatter by attending a Civil Trial Conference and
Fk
Ee
finalizing trial documents such subpoenas, trial graphics, and opposing Defendant’s motions in
Ee
DHA
limine. (/d.,§ 19.)
Ee
Final trialpreparations were completed in May and June 2019, and a jury trialcommenced
HN
Re
in Placer County on July 1, 2019 before Honorable Michael W. Jones and concluded on July 15,
2019. Ud., §20.) At the conclusion of the trial,
as indicated by the Judgment on Jury Verdict entered
Oo
Be
on September 6, 2019, the jury found that the Subject Vehicle did suffer from covered defects that
NO
COD
substantially impaired Plaintiffs use, value or safety, and that HMA did fail to conform the vehicle
KH
NN
to warranty or replace or repurchase it after a reasonable number of opportunities. (/d.,§ 21.)
NHN
HN
Accordingly, Plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $30,412.43, representing a full
Ww
HN
statutory repurchase after application of a mileage offset. Neither party appealed the result. (/d.,§
PP
HN
22)
NW
NHN
Therefore, Plaintiff isentitled to allreasonable attorney’s fees incurred by HDMN (plus those
KO
NO
in connection with the collection of such fees). (Jd. § 23.) All of the fees incurred in this matter
wpO
oN
resulted from HMA’s obstinacy, refusal to comply with California’s consumer protection laws, and
wo
AL
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION
FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
failure to do right by Ms. King despite knowing of the severity of the issues in the Subject Vehicle.
=
Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, made every
NPO
reasonable effort to resolve the payment
of HDMN’s fees but was forced to file this Motion with the Court. (/d.,
WO
q 24.)
Ill. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS
HP
A. HDMN’s Attorneys Are Entitled
WO
to Fees in this Action
Based on the settlement agreement, Pla
Preview
ORIGINAL HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. we Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349) 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 DB Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fi i E D Telephone: WwW (310) 887-1333 Superior Court of Callfornia Facsimile: (310) 887-1334 County of Placer BP E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com DEC 04 2018 ae Jake Chatters Attorneys for DW Plaintiff, cutive Officer & Clerk ANNA P. KING SH. Lucatuorto, Deputy ONY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER 0 ANNA P. KING, CO Case No.: SCV0038637 ee Plaintiff KF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & ee PB MOTION FOR COUNSEL HACKLER, VS. DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO & NOVAK, Ww P.C.’"S ATTORNEYS’ FEES me =< BP Pee Niet MOTOR. AMERICA, INC., a [Filed Concurrently with Memorandum of "F] Wn California Corporation; and DOES 1 through Points and Authorities in Support Thereof a 10, mnchistye, Declaration of Sepehr Daghighian in Suppo DH of Motion] Rm Defendants. Date: January 3, 2020 ON Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 31 OD DBD —RO KF& NO NYnd NO Ww NO FF HN MW NO NO NWN NO ao NO -|- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 3, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the NYO Placer County Superior Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California W 95678, Plaintiff Anna P. King (‘Plaintiff’) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an award ee NHN of his counsel Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C.’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiff moves this Court as the Dn prevailing party pursuant to the Judgment on Jury Verdict entered by this Court on September 6, YH 2019, confirming ajury verdict and award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant HYUNDAI Oo MOTOR AMERICA, INC. So Plaintiff's counsel Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. now move for an order CO hh awarding attorney’s fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $91,700.00. Plaintiff also KF —_|_—hlh requests a modest “lodestar” enhancement of .5, in the amount of $45,850.00, for a total of HO St $137,550.00 as the attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred. WOW This motion is based upon the memorandum of points and authorities filed concurrently BP ee herewith, upon the declarations filed concurrently herewith, upon such evidence, oral and Wn Fe DB documentary, that may be presented at the hearing, and upon the entire record of the case. Fe NI Fe Oo Dated: December2, 2019 FF ODO He Respectfully submitted, FD HN KF& NO Ne NO Sepeh ighian, Esq. WY Attorneys for Plaintiff, PN ANNA P. KING fF NH vA NO Dn NO NY wo Oa NO 25. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES KF HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. Sepehr Daghighian, (SBN 239349) 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 2500 NY Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 887-1333 W Facsimile: (310) 887-1334 Fe E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com HA Attorneys for Plaintiff, ANNA P. KING Dn NY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Oo COUNTY OF PLACER So ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637 CO KS Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NY vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL WY HACKLER, DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C.’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES FP Ee HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a ° 8 California Corporation; and DOES 1| through Date: January 3, 2020 Fe Hn 10, inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m. FE Dept. 31 NQH Fe Defendants. Oo He BO He COD NN K& NO NY WN NY BP NH AN NYO DBO HNO wo oN bw PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES TABLE OF CONTENTS NY INTRODUCTION o.oo cccccceccseneenseeseesessessesaecaeeeseeseeneeesaessecseeseesseresseessseatereeseeseeaes l WW STATEMENT OF FACTS ..0...occcccccecsecessesseeenseesecseesseceeeseeesecsecseeesesseseaeesseaseaseesesssees 2 Fe A. HDMN’s Association and Preparation For Trial ...........cccccecseesceseeeeceeeeseeseeseeseees 4 I. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS 200. cccccceeeceeseesseeeeeeneeeeseeceeeeeeensecneecseeeeseeneeeeeeaeeaees 4 nH A. HDMN Is Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in thisAction..........c:ccccccccccscesseeteeeteeseeeees 4 Hn B. The Hourly Rates Sought by HDMN’s Attorneys Are Reasonable.................006 4 YN le The Nature and Complexity of the Litigation Support the Attorney’s Fees RGQUCSIC oscssuzce sxsncnave winsome suai ca teaics tatacabs sa spaaceAttien ahaanaOR 6 Aa Ds The Firm’s SkillJustifies the Amount of Attorney’s Fees Sought ............ 7 3. The Verdict Amount Does Not Limit the Attorney’s Fee Recovery.......... 8 0 CG. Plaintiff Should Be Granted a Lodestar Multiplier ..........cece eeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeneeeees 9 OC ee IV. CONCLUSION .....0....eeceeessessecsscessecsseesecesceeseeseeeeeaeeesecenseeeesnceseseesasoeensenenseesensenenseeeners 11 KF NY Ree WY FP Hn DH OHNH mm ODO TODO RO NO K§ KN WN KN BRP KH NW HN OW BH NO CoN Oo ois PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES LO WD Cazares v. Saenz ee 208 Cal. App.3d 279 (1989) oo...ecccssssssssssssssssssssvssssssssssscscscesrsssesesescsessasesessasacacacscscsceees 12 Nn City of Riverside v. Rivera DB (1986) 477 WS, S61 sssssssssansiisassintnenonennesnanencaevmnene pe cecutursnvssrarennanawawnusuuecearneaaeweneunseusvewestasacaxse NY Dietrich v. Dietrich Oo (1953) 41, Cal 2409 ccccasvasnnsana sesis 5. ksihansannaneneonnenenee nvenuseneng yeteonsokssessanseasansbespeanslennoeceTs So En Palm, LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal CO App. 4th 710 vcccssssseusvexsvessnssicianenceenssreesesssenasevannrarenyegoresunsavessegsvnenninntenvensssassens lu ee KF Goglin v.BMW of North America, LLC ee NYO (2016) 4 Cal. App. Sth 462, 470......cccccccccccscsssscsesscscssesesccscsussecscsecsuscsecassevscasareacaeeacsees 7,8, WD we Graciano v.Robinson Ford Sales BR (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 140 oo. ccc ccccecsessesessccscsscsecsesseesecsecssesecsecsecsecsecseenens 7, 8,9, 11, nD Graham vy.DaimlerChrysler Corp. NDB (2009) 34: CAL AUR S33 ecrccsnanaenaicesensesinssins sinents shsich isd0ktank senannewnannacannnannavmessnornennrswemceqamvcee 6,7, Hadley v. Repel Oo (EBS) PO) Cal A026 O77 eecrenssmenssmesnncsanacmsasensewemcestemenmncenon ssyaisen caerh.fdsiedioitndh hsedlnnnarnansemenenes Oo Harman y. City and County ofSan Francisco OS RO (2067) U8 Gah AOD AAO T nessconsncerssesensnesanair estan towmantener setae, satensirstats. dsclaes t KFK RO Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. Nd NO (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359 ooo cececeeeeeeeesseceeeeseceseeeseeeeeeceseeeseceseeeseseeneeceaeeneeensesseees We KN In re Chiron Corp. Securities Litigation Fe NO No. C-04-4293 VRW, 2007 WL 4249902 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007) .......ccccecceceseeeteetteeteees NW NO Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v.Zipes NWN NO (1989) 491 U.S. 754 voeeeeecceecceeeceseeeseeeneeeneeceeeceeeceeeceeeeneeensaeeceeesenseeeeeeeseneseeeesueeenteeeneeens NO Jensen v.BMW of North America, Inc. oN NO (1995) 35 CaL APO ARH 112 .........ccreoncmencennrorevennersenneenanonsnnerenennmiiinindhhiaiassnstineak thsia aaesenmeasesek -ii- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES Ketchum v. Moses & (2007) 24 Cal ANG D122, sissscoesssaccrena acon sercmasnae ease eens seseReNOUNEEREINND 12, 13 YO La Mesa-Spring Valley School Dist. v. Otsuka WY (1962) 37 Gal 2d 309 oiscnccesassoss 2 ose anaemeeareenaeRO 10 FP Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles aA (T986) 188 Cal A301. ssvcsxas.sncassssacnessanaunmnnasnxacesassienataanannnesemniislamennsrenndneressennemimemanmaeaennn 8,9 Dn Mandel v. Lackner NI 02. Cal. App.30 TAT (1979) ccconsssaccnecnenarcsensnsansmuanessannvmsnwannvesnenasunsssen nememennaemannmmunnernmianeae 7 wa Molski v. Arclero Wine Group Co (2008) 164 Cal App Ath TRG cesscnsuncanencssancscecumvewarnasmsanasmacamenasssmeeesamnnesconesusemncexnanansaxsun 10 OS PLCM Group v.Drexler, supra KF eee 22 Cal Ath at 1095 ccencmmnmassa cman areas ommmeneanenemnnmanemarnmsammnennssess 8, 12 NY Reveles v. Ford by the Bay Ww (1997) 37 Cal PE FISD ore cccisencnvnseeeneoumrenneaansmemenceecessnencrenmnermrcanneceenmesemmereemanss 6, 7 FP Re Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. na Re (2006) 144 Cal. App.4th 785 oo... ccccecceccccseceeeeseeeeneeeeeeseeeeeeneeesseeesseeeeeeeeenaeees 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 HD ee Serrano vy.Priest WOANQI Re (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 (Serrano LID) ..cccccccccccscccescccsseccsssceecesueeeecenaeeeeeseeeceeneeeessaeeeeneeenseeensaeees 12 RR Serrano v. Unruh OBO 32 Cal.3d 621 (1982)... ccccccecccesecceceseeseeseceeeeeeeeeeesecceeecsecsaeeseeseeccseceeseesseseseeesessseeseseeseasenes 7,8 TO NO Vo v.Las Virgenes Municipal Water District KFK§ KN (2000) 79 Cal. App.4th 440 oo...eccccecsecseeessecssceecsscesecesseessecsseesssecsesessecesssaseseseaseseseaeens 11, ,2 Ne KN We Statutes NY Pe NHN 15 United States Code NW Section 2301 et:seq. (Mapiuson Moss. Warrality ACH) scsstsescnsssvesuncsaanvmnoseansececnecanasanrerenezss 11 HN OW 42 United States Code BN wpoO Section 1988 .....ccccccccccccsscccesscesssceesseeeesecceeeecseeseeecessaeeeseseeeecesesseceseeaeessseesessseeeeeeeesseeeeensees 11 oN BO -ili- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES California Code of Civil Procedure CG FF rescosamen ands oh attdelat pmnnmeeeomeemnememroeeenwemneucrmemnrenensrmenewanupengvapsgeseraraecesunaserssn 1, 4, 5, 13 NYO California Code of Civil Procedure WY Section 1032(a)(4)......cssssecsscsscecscessessessssssssssscsessssssesssssssesscseeeneessssessessensessenresscessessess 6,7 ee California Code of Civil Procedure HN SOON, POSIT sev canna. anaes ra sats stain htinanconnnananwonsnnaensannenwansrannaccuenunannrinensatenantiasiien drenameenerse14 Dn California Code of Civil Procedure ON SOC, F794 (2 serenosxamessacsennessscssansun ens omeowsanin ent Ki scesitee Xs RECA Sic ead idea cates 6, 7, 14 Co CO Treatises KF Ree Pearl, California Attorney Fee Awards Sections 12. 4A, 12.33 Gitid Ed. 2005) sessassncssacnewsuasaczans sasmnenumemavss avenue mveatsaeunmeesnancneueanis 7 NY RRR Re WY Other Authorities FP Senate Report No. 93-151, Ist Sess., pp. 23-24 (1973) ....ececccccsceesseceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseaeeeeeeenaeeeseesneeeneeenees 11 A KD WON OBO COD HNO KFK& KN NYO NO WO KN Bk NO nN NO DO NO NO oN BO -iv- PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES I. INTRODUCTION eK On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff Anna P. King (‘Plaintiff’) purchased a new 2010 Hyundai NO Tucson, VIN: KM8JU3ACXAU0I5808 (‘Subject Vehicle”) from HYUNDAI MOTOR WY AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant” or “HMA”) for a total purchase price of $32,347.84. Between the Fe date of purchase and August 2015, Plaintiff made four (4) service visits for issues with an important mn safety feature, the Subject Vehicle’s backup camera, without resolution of the problem. By January Dn 2016, Plaintiff had come to believe that the Subject Vehicle was a “lemon” under the Song-Beverly ON Act (“the Act”), so on January 6, 2016 she contacted HMA Customer Service to request a buyback under the Act. On or around February 18, 2016, HMA denied Plaintiff's buyback request but offered oO to cover the backup camera. CO Re Nearly three (3) years of litigation ensued, culminating in a jury trial in July 2019. KF Throughout the litigation, HMA steadfastly maintained that the Subject Vehicle was not a lemon NY and that no repurchase or other accommodation was required, while Plaintiff strongly believed WY wr that HMA willfully failed to comply with itswarranty obligations and that civilpenalties were FF warranted. HMA made two early settlement overtures but Plaintiff found both attempts to be nH vague, ambiguous, uncertain and incomplete, so Plaintiff objected on those grounds while inviting DH HMA to mediate, an invitation HMA declined. HMA never remedied the defects identified by ON Plaintiff, made no further offers to settle and rejected three settlement offers made by Plaintiff in an effort to avoid the delays, costs and uncertainties of trial. Without options, Plaintiff's counsel UO prepared and tried Plaintiff's case to victory. RO CO Plaintiff's counsel Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. (“HDMN”) prepared this NO KH matter for trialfrom the moment that itassociated in. The efforts and skill demonstrated from HDMN KN WN largely contributed to the excellent result that was obtained. This motion seeks HDMN’s attorney’s KN fees incurred inobtaining this exceptional outcome for Ms. King. PP KN HDMN has a proven track records of exceptional settlements and verdicts for Knight Law’s AN KH clients. Therefore, associating HDMN into Knight Law’s cases oftentimes prompts manufacturers BO HN to take the cases more serious and make reasonable settlement offers. Unfortunately, oftentimes pO oN only after trialattorneys are brought into a case, do the manufacturers finally do the right thing and NO -|- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES settle these cases. In fact, associating in HDMN regularly results in higher settlements for Knight Law’s clients because the manufacturers and their lawyers BO know HDMN’s reputation for exceptional trialpreparedness and trialadvocacy. W On September 6, 2019, this Court’s Judgment on BR Jury Verdict was entered following a trial which commenced on WNW July 1,2019 before Honorable Michael W. Jones. The resulting verdict — the jury found that the Subject Vehicle did suffer from covered defects that substantially impaired ND Plaintiff's use, value or safety, and that HMA did failto conform the vehicle to warranty or replace or repurchase it aftera reasonable Oa number of opportunities, but that HMA’s failure to repurchase did not warrant civil penalties — presumably So did not fully satisfy either party. The Song-Beverly Act, Civil Code sections 1790, et seg., entitles Ms. King to seek CO ee reasonable attorney’s fees from HMA. Moreover, as the prevailing party in this matter, Plaintiff is KF entitled to this noticed motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff now moves for ee an order awarding his NB counsel HDMN’s attorneys’ fees under the “lodestar” method in the amount of $91,700.00. Plaintiff WO me also requests a modest “lodestar” enhancement of .5, BP in the amount of $45,850.00, for a total of $137,550.00 as the attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred. (Declaration of Sepehr WW Daghighian (“SD Dec.”) § 8, Ex. A.) DBO mmm i, STATEMENT OF FACTS NQ A. HDMN’s Association and Preparation For Trial Oo mm Oo With the absence of any reasonable settlement offer from HMA accounting for itswillful DBD violation of the Song-Beverly Act, the case appeared likely to go to trial.(SD Dec., § 11-12, Ex. C.) RO Accordingly, in December 2018, Sepehr Daghighian of Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. F& RO formally associated into the case as lead trial counsel to prepare the case for trial.(/d.) NO NY With trialonly a few months away, HDMN began in earnest analyzing the case file and Ww KN preparing the case for jury trial.(/d., | 13.) Had HMA acted reasonably in settling thismatter sooner, FF NO the need to associate HDMN and all of HMDN’s fees could have been completely avoided. (/d.,§ nN NO Plaintiffs would be forced take this matter to trial ifthey Dn 14.) The message HMA sent was clear, NO wanted to receive compensation for the willful violations that HMA committed. (/d.) NO oN HDMN then began preparing for trialby, among other things, preparing trialdocuments, i.e. NO -2- PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES Joint Exhibit List, Joint Witness List, Joint Statement of the Case, Proposed Voir Dire Questions, eK Proposed CACTI Jury Instructions, Plaintiffs Special Jury Instructions, and Special Verdict Forms., NO etc.; preparing trial examination outlines, reviewing deposition transcripts and drafting summaries. W (Id., 15.) Additionally, HDMN worked with Plaintiff's expert to understand the technical side of FF the case and to undercut HMA’s anticipated defenses. (/d. § 16.) Trial counsel also reviewed the nH voluminous document production by HMA, analyzing deposition transcripts, preparing notices to Dn appear, and otherwise preparing the matter for trial.(Jd.)HDMN also drafted motions inlimine (and A oppositions to HMA’s own motions in limine) ahead of the trialdate. (/d.,§ 17.) Again, Plaintiff wo benefitted from counsel’s experience in this area of law, as each 6 to 10-page motion required only Oo 0.5 hours, as opposed to multiple hours for each. (/d.) CO On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff took the deposition of HMA’s Person Most Knowledgeables KK eee (“PMK’”) Sandy Zielmosky and Eric Sim. (/d.,§ 18.) Both depositions provided favorable testimony NY that undercut HMA’s defense that the issues relating tobackup camera were not covered by the basic WY warranty. (/d.) Plaintiff further prepared for thismatter by attending a Civil Trial Conference and Fk Ee finalizing trial documents such subpoenas, trial graphics, and opposing Defendant’s motions in Ee DHA limine. (/d.,§ 19.) Ee Final trialpreparations were completed in May and June 2019, and a jury trialcommenced HN Re in Placer County on July 1, 2019 before Honorable Michael W. Jones and concluded on July 15, 2019. Ud., §20.) At the conclusion of the trial, as indicated by the Judgment on Jury Verdict entered Oo Be on September 6, 2019, the jury found that the Subject Vehicle did suffer from covered defects that NO COD substantially impaired Plaintiffs use, value or safety, and that HMA did fail to conform the vehicle KH NN to warranty or replace or repurchase it after a reasonable number of opportunities. (/d.,§ 21.) NHN HN Accordingly, Plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $30,412.43, representing a full Ww HN statutory repurchase after application of a mileage offset. Neither party appealed the result. (/d.,§ PP HN 22) NW NHN Therefore, Plaintiff isentitled to allreasonable attorney’s fees incurred by HDMN (plus those KO NO in connection with the collection of such fees). (Jd. § 23.) All of the fees incurred in this matter wpO oN resulted from HMA’s obstinacy, refusal to comply with California’s consumer protection laws, and wo AL PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES failure to do right by Ms. King despite knowing of the severity of the issues in the Subject Vehicle. = Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, made every NPO reasonable effort to resolve the payment of HDMN’s fees but was forced to file this Motion with the Court. (/d., WO q 24.) Ill. ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS HP A. HDMN’s Attorneys Are Entitled WO to Fees in this Action Based on the settlement agreement, Pla