Preview
ee
UY
ORI SINAL
HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C.
NR
Sepehr Daghighian,(SBN 239349)
10250 ConstellationBlvd.,Suite2500
Los Angeles,CA 90067 SuperiorCourt ofCalifornia
ounte afDinnar:
WD
Telephone: (310)887-1333
Facsimile: (310)887-1334 DEC 04 2019
FSF
E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com
Jake Chatters
WA
gpehoutive Officer
& Clerk
Attorneys forPlaintiff, y: ©. Lucatuorto,
Deouty
DW
ANNA P. KING
“SS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CO
COUNTY OF PLACER
Oo
ANNA P.KING, Case No.:SCV0038637
ee
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SEPEHR
DAGHIGHIAN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ea
VS.
COUNSEL HACKLER,
DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO &
ee
NOVAK’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a
AG
CaliforniaCorporation;andDOES 1 through [FiledConcurrentlywith Plaintiffs
Notice
ea
10,inclusive, ofMotion andMotion forAttorneys’Fees;
XVA
Memorandum in SupportThereof;
Declarationof SteveMikhov]
Defendants.
Date:January 3,2020
Time: 8:30a.m.
ROR
Dept. 31
KR
DN
BR
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN
eH
I,Sepehr Daghighian,declareunder penaltyofperjurythe following:
WN
1. Iam an attorney
at law,duly licensed
to practice
before allcourtsintheStateof
W
California.I have
been a licensed
practitioner
inthe StateofCaliforniasince2005;SBN 239349.
FB
I havepersonalknowledge ofallfactscontainedinthisdeclarationand,if called
upon totestify,
WO
Icould and would competentlytestifytothetruthofeach statementcontainedherein.
HD
2. Iam a licensedpractitioner
and managing partneratHackler Daghighian Martino
“SY
& Novak, P.C.inLos Angeles, California.Inthe instant
action,I represented
Plaintiff
Anna P.
CO
King inassociationwith KnightLaw Group, LLP, asleadtrialcounsel.
oOo
3. Between 2015 to 2018 my rate
litigation was $400 per hourfor services.
litigation
ele
As istypically
done inour industry,
our firmperiodically
increasesthehourlyratesofallcounsel.
OOO eee
On January 1,2018, my hourly ratewas increasedforthe first
timein severalyearsto$490.00,
and onJanuary 1,2019 to$550.00 inorderaccountforan adjustmentbased onincreasedlitigation
ee
experienceand theincreasedcostofallgoods/servicesassociated
with legalservices.
The hourly
RE
ROO
rateincreasesthewas implemented throughout my firmremains comparable tothose chargedby
otherfirms throughout themetropolitanarea. I graduatedfrom University ofCalifornia,
Los
FF
Angeles with a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in Physicsand received my law degree from the
Loyola Law School in Los Angeles,California.
In settingmy hourlyrate,I have taken into
FEF
account suchfactorsasmy 12+ yearsoflitigation
experience,theskills
and knowledge acquired
HF
over thoseyears,and theratesreasonablycharged by otherattorneys
in themetropolitanareain
NO
which I work. I havelitigated
hundreds ofcasesduring thistimeincludingseveraldozen lemon
NO
law matters. My rateis commensurate with other practitioners
inmy area providingcivil
NO
litigation
services
and is regularly
paidby my clients
forservices
thataresimilartothoseprovided
bBo
toPlaintiff.
My hourlyrate,and my associates’
hourly rates,
are thesame in casesinwhich we
representclients
on an hourlyrateagreement asthey areherein thecontextof acontingencyfee
and do nottake into the
consideration risks
additional associatedwiththe contingencynatureof
Song Beverly Consumer Warranty My
litigation. time are
entries by
reflected the “SD”
initials
before thedescriptionofwork performed onmy firm’sbill.
In my billing
statementsubmitted
1
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
alongwith thismotion,I reducedour billing
for several
of theinter-office
conferencesandother
administrative
tasks,which occurred throughoutthislitigation.My firm’sbilling
practiceisto
YN
reduce such itemsin our bills
as a courtesyto ourclients. I offered
WD
theDefendant thatsame
courtesyin my firm’sbillingstatement
RP
inthiscase. I haveperformed 0.5hours of work,which
includedmy reviewand analysisofthecase file
in ordertopreparethe casefortrial.
I spent
6.50
OO
hours preparing thisinstantmotion and accompanying documents. I anticipate
I willspend
NN
another 7.0hours reviewingDefendant’s Opposition and preparing
a replybrief.Ianticipate
I
Oo
willspend another0.5 hoursattendingthehearingon thismotion.
4. Lauren C. Martinis anassociateattorney
oO
withmy firmand has been admittedto
practicein Californiasince 2017. Ms. Martin graduated from Southwestern Law School’s
S
prestigiousSCALE program and was a member of the
Women’s Law Societyand CriminalLaw
BHA
Society.She focusedon civillitigation
research throughoutlaw schoolunder thesupervisionof
ProfessorRonald Aronovsky, Esq. while alsoa full-timeextern atthe Los Angeles District
OR
Attorney’s Officein the Hardcore Gang Division.Ms. Martin also internedat an insurance
BsSRaRBSBKRHSSCSERARAR
subrogationcivillitigation
firm and worked as anassociateata realestatelitigation
firmwhere
she worked primarilywithunlawful detaineractions.
Her hourlyratein thismatteris$225/hour
up throughDecember 31,2017 and$250/hour afterJanuary1,2018. As of January1,2019,Ms.
Martin’shourly rateis$275/hour. Ms. Martin hasperformed 21.75 hours onthiscase,and her
hours arereflected
by theinitials
“LCM” on our CaseInvoice.
5. Larry Castruitaisan associateattorneywithmy firm and hasbeen admitted to
practiceinCaliforniasince2011. Mr. Castruitagraduatedfrom Southwestern Law School
RO
and,
sincebeing admitted topractice,
BO
has focused on civil
litigation.
Mr. Castruita
has successfully
litigated
dozens of mattersinstateand federalcourtsthroughout California.
His hourlyratein
thismatter is$300/hour up throughDecember 31, 2017,$350/hour afterJanuary 1,2018, and
$375/hour afterJanuary1,2019. Mr. Castruitahasperformed 15.75 hoursof work on this
case,
and hishours arereflected
by theinitials
“LSC” on our Case Invoice.
6. Erik Schmitt isan associateattorneywith my firm and has been admitted to
practiceinCaliforniasince2017. Mr. Schmitt graduatedmagna cum laude from Southwestern
2
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Law School’sprestigious
SCALE program and was a member ofthe SouthwesternLaw Review.
He alsoserved asa judicial
internforboththe Honorable StephenA. Marcus
YN
of theLos Angeles
SuperiorCourt and theHonorable PhillipS.Gutierrezof theUnited States
DistrictCourtforthe
PW
CentralDistrict
of California.
His hourlyrateinthismatterwas $225/hour upto January1,2018,
$250/hour from January 1,2018 to January 1,2019,
HN
and $275/hourafterJanuary 1,2019. Mr.
Schmitthas performed 7.00hours ofwork onthiscase,and hishoursare reflected
by theinitials
QHD
“EKS” on ourCase Invoice.I anticipate
Mr. Schmittwillbe performing another28.00 hoursof
Oo
work reviewing Defendant’soppositionand preparinga replybrief.
oOo
7. Kevin Y. Jacobson isan associateattorneywith my firmand has admitted to
practiceinCalifornia
since2018. Mr. Jacobsongraduated inthetop25% of his
classfrom Loyola
rr
DHS
Law SchoolinLos Angeles, California.
Priortobeingadmitted tothebar,Mr. Jacobsonhad been
a paralegal
atmy office
forapproximately six-years.
Not onlyishe well-versedinpersonalinjury
law, contract
law, and intellectual
property law,Mr. Jacobson isparticularly
knowledgeable in
Ok
the Song-Beverly Act asa resultofyears ofexperienceassistingmy officein trial
preparation
RDARaAaRE
relatedtasks. Mr. rateinthismatteris$250/hour upthrough December 31,2018 and $275/hour
afterJanuary1,2018. He performed 224.00 hoursor work on case.
this
8. Andrea Plata isa paralegalatmy office.
Ms. Platahas been a paralegalatmy
officeforover a yearandiswell-versedin litigation
support.Ms. Platapreviouslyworked atthe
BSRSSGCSR
Merced District
Attorney’sofficeassisting
attorneyswith preparingtrial
binders andothertrial
preparationrelated
tasks. She hasworked with me on thiscaseinorderto assist
withopening the
file,
preparing andfilingdocuments with theCourt,
RD
servingcorrespondence and documents on
opposing counsel, and similarsuch tasks.
BRO
Ms. Plata’shourly rate is$75/hour, which is
commensurate
BRO
withotherparalegalsintheLos Angeles areathatprovide litigation
support. Ms.
Plata’shasperformed 11.75 hoursofwork onthiscase,and herhours arereflected
by theinitials
R
“AP” on our Case Invoice.
bo
Boose
9. The totalamount of feesincurredby my office
to preparethiscase fortrial
was
$91,700.00,inclusiveofthe timeto draft
thismotion and supportingpapers,and theanticipated
time forreviewing the opposition,
draftinga reply,and appearing atthehearing. A true and
3
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
correctcopy of the
billing
incurredin prosecution
of this
matter bymy firmisattachedasExhibit
“A.” HDMN alsorequestsa modest .5enhancement, intheamount of$45,850.00,toaccountfor
HO
the delay in payment and contingent riskposed by this case, for totalattorneys’fees of
WO
$137,550.00.
FP
10. In consideringthe appropriateratesto charge ina matter
AW
such asthis,Ihave
revieweda reportentitled
United StatesConsumer Law AttorneyFee Survey Reportpublished
DO
in
2017 reflectingratesfor 2015 to 2016. Based on thefactspresented inthe
SI
Report,I have
determined thattherateschargedby theattorneysinthiscase arecommensurate withthehourly
A
ratescharged byother attorneys
with comparable experiencein consumer
oS
rightslaw. On Pages
1 — 16,thepurpose and methodology of theReport isdescribed. On Pages 42 — 45,the Report
lle
sets forth the average hourly ratesof consumer law attorneys in Californiabased on
EEUU
experience.The informationreflectedinthesepages supportsthereasonablenessof theattorney
REO
hourlyratescharged inthiscase,which areequivalent,
if notbelow,the averagerateofattorneys
who practiceconsumer law in California.On pages 360 — 365, the Reportidentifiescasesin
ROHR
Californiathathave usedthisReport assupporting evidencein feeawards. The entirereportis
407 pages so I have attached only therelevantpages dealing with Californiaattorneys
Re
and
Californialaw.A trueand correctcopy ofthereportisattachedheretoas Exhibit“B.”
RRO
11. In December 2018, Mikhov of Knight Law Group calledme to discussthe
likelihoodoftrialinthismatterand asked ifI wouldassociateintothecase,to preparethecase
RFR
fortrial
and actas leadtrial
counsel if the
caseindeed proceeded totrial.
My office
receivedthe
NO
case file
and documents, reviewed them, calendareddeadlines,and began preparingPlaintiff's
PPO
trial
exhibitbinderbased on discoveryresponses.
NO
12. InDecember 2018, my law officewas associated
intothe casetocome on aslead
BP
trial
counsel and preparethe casefortrial.Atrue and correctcopy ofNotice ofAssociationof
BO
Counsel isattachedheretoasExhibit “C.”
13. With trialonlya few months away, HDMN began in earnest
analyzing thecase
fileandpreparingthe caseforjurytrial.
14. | Had HMA actedreasonably insettlingthismattersooner,the need toassociate
4
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
HDMN and allofHMDN’s fees couldhave been completely avoided.The message HMA sent
was clear, Plaintiffwould be forced take thismatter to trialif theywanted to receive
NY
compensation forthewillful that
violations HMA committed.
WY
15. | HDMN then began preparing fortrialby,among other preparing
things, trial
Fe
documents, i.e.
JointExhibitList,JointWitnessList,JointStatementof the
AH
Case,Proposed Voir
Dire Questions, Proposed CACI Jury Instructions,
PlaintiffsSpecial
HD
JuryInstructions,
and
Special Verdict Forms., etc.;preparing trialexamination
KN
outlines,reviewing deposition
Oa
and
transcripts summaries.
drafting
16. Additionally,HDMN worked with Plaintiff's
oO
expertto understandthe technical
sideof the caseand to undercutHMA’s anticipateddefenses.Trialcounselalso reviewedthe
AS
voluminous document productionby HMA, analyzingdepositiontranscripts,
preparingnotices
toappear, andotherwisepreparing thematterfortrial.
eBARARBaAREBHKR
17. | HDMN alsodraftedmotions in limine(and oppositionstoHMA’s own motions
ea
inlimine)ahead of the
trial
date.Again, Plaintiff benefitted
from counsel’s
experience inthis
area
of law,as each 6to 10-page motion requiredonly 0.5hours, asopposed to multiplehoursfor
each,
18. On June 20, 2019, Plaintifftook the deposition of HMA’s Person Most
Knowledgeables (“PMK”) Sandy Zielmosky andEric Sim. Both depositions
provided favorable
testimony thatundercut HMA’s defensethat the issuesrelating
to
GC
backup camera were not
SF
covered bythe basicwarranty.
OR
19. _ Plaintiff
furtherpreparedforthismatterby attendingaCivilTrialConference
YX
and
BORD
finalizing
trialdocuments such subpoenas,trial
graphics,and opposing Defendant’smotions in
BRSBS
limine.
20. Finaltrialpreparationswere completed inMay and June 2019, anda jury trial
No
commenced in PlacerCounty onJuly 1,2019 beforeHonorable Michael W. Jonesand concluded
SSR
on July15,2019.
21. At theconclusionof thetrial,
asindicatedby theJudgment on JuryVerdictentered
on September 6, 2019,the juryfound thatthe SubjectVehicle didsufferfrom covered defects
5
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
thatsubstantially
impairedPlaintiff's
use,value orsafety,andthatHMA did fail
toconform the
eS
vehicletowarranty orreplaceor repurchaseitafter
a reasonablenumber ofopportunities.
NY
22. Accordingly, Plaintiffwas awarded damages in the amount
WD
of $30,412.43,
representing a fullstatutoryrepurchaseafter
FP
applicationof a mileage offset.Neitherparty
appealedthe result. :
OH
23. Therefore,
NHN
Plaintiff
isentitled
toallreasonableattorney’s
feesincurredby HDMN
(plusthosein connectionwith thecollection
HN
of suchfees).All ofthefees incurredinthis
matter
resulted
Oo
from HMA’s obstinacy,refusaltocomply withCalifornia’sconsumer protection
laws,
and failure
to do rightbyMs. King despiteknowing
oO
of theseverityofthe issuesintheSubject
Vehicle.
eek
24. Plaintiff,
asthe prevailingpartyin thisaction,made every reasonableeffortto
resolvethepayment ofHDMN’s feesbut was forcedtofilethis
Motion withthe Court.
25. | HDMN’s hourly rateshave been approved by numerous courtsthroughoutthe
StateofCalifornia. For example,on August 8,2018, Judge John P.Doyle awarded 100% of the
lodestarfeesrequestedby
pw
motion inthe totalamount of$72,478.75 inthe matterof Morgan v.
FCA (Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt, CaseNo. BC625668). The courtindicatedit would
not considerratesof defensecounsel and found thatthehourly rateswere reasonablefor‘that
venue and thatthetime incurredwere reasonable. The ratesrequestedby motion includedmy
rateof $400 perhour. A trueand correctcopy ofthesigned orderisattachedhereto asExhibit
D.
RD
BRO
26. On September 20,2017, Judge Gail R. Feuer awarded $227,228.00 in attorney
BRO
feesand $31,712.55in costs
and expenses inthematterof AnitaLongin vs.Ford Motor Company
(Los Angeles SuperiorCourt, CaseNo. BC564186). Specifically,
theCourt deemed my hourly
rateof$400 per hourreasonable.The attorneyfeeaward represents98% recovery of the
lodestar
bo
feesand costsrequestedby motion in thematter.A trueand correctcopy ofthe signedorder is
attachedheretoas ExhibitE.
27. On June 5, 2019, JudgeJanet M. Frangie awarded $184,104.69 inattorneyfees
and $49,666.22 incostsand expensesin thematterof BlascoReal Estate,Inc.,
et al.
v. FCAUS
6
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
LLC (SanBernardino SuperiorCourt,Case No. CIV DS1609641). Specifically,
theCourtdeemed
ee
my hourlyrateof $490 perhour
NYO
reasonable,aswell as$250 per hour formy associate,ErikK.
Schmitt.A trueand correctcopy oftheorder isattached
WD
heretoasExhibit F.
28. On July 10,2019,Judge
BR
Angel M. Bermudez awarded $40,978.75inattorneyfees
in the matter of Jose Cisneros v. FCA US LLC (Riverside
OO
Superior Court, Case No.
MCC1700337). The
NWN
Court awarded 100% ofthefeesrequested byPlaintiff’s
counsel,including
findingmy rateof$550 per
YN
hourreasonable inthecommunity, aswell asthatof my associates
Larry Castruita
CO
($385 per hour)and ErikK. Schmitt ($275per hour).A trueand correct
copy of
theorder isattachedheretoasExhibit G.
o
29. On August 19, 2019,Judge Norman P.Tarleawarded $95,497.50inattorneyfees
and $28,546.20 incostsand expensesinthe matterof RitaGamez v. FCAUS LLC (Los Angeles
ee
Superior Court, Case No. BC638011). The Court awarded 100% of the feesrequested by
Plaintiff's
counsel,includingfindingmy hourlyrateof $490 perhour reasonable,aswell
in
as that
ofmy associate,
ErikK. Schmitt ($250per hour).
A trueandcorrectcopy ofthe orderisattached
heretoas ExhibitH.
30. I requesta multiplierof.5 based on my contingentfee,the riskand delay in
payment associatedwith acontingentfee scenario,
and theresultachieved. Such amultiplieris
reasonableand towardsthe lowend under theestablished
law. (Wershba vy. Apple
Computer, Inc.
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th224, 255.) Plaintiff’s
attorneys
are paidonly if Plaintiffs
prevail,
unlike
Defendant’s attorneys
who getpaid monthly regardless
of theoutcome. Moreover, Defendant’s
OND
attorneys
BRO
typically
have acontinuingand ongoing relationship,
whereas thisfirmwillmost likely
BRO
nothave the opportunitytorepresentPlaintiff
again.
31. Itisnot uncommon for attorney’s
fees andcoststo exceed theclient’s
damages.
The Legislatureacknowledged such a circumstance,which isthereason behind thefeeshifting
provisionof theSong-Beverly Act. Otherwise,consumers would be leftwithoutopportunityfor
redresswhen theirdamages werenot enough foran attorneytotakethe caseona contingentfee
or hourly ratebasis. Such a resultoccurs in largepart because of dealerships’or vehicle
manufacturers’refusalto adhereto statutory
laws protectingconsumers,resistancetohonoring
7
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
consumers’ complaints,and generallyplaying games or simply abusingdiscovery procedures.
Re
For example, HMA could have
NYO
avoidedpaying any attorneyfeeswhatsoever had itadmittedto
itswrongdoing earlyon. Instead,HMA engaged inexpensive litigation,
and
WO
drove up feesand
costsby,among otherthings,
engaging
BR
inextensivediscovery,stone-walling
Plaintiff's
discovery
efforts.
OH
32. Lemon law
DWN
casesarenotsimple actions.They require
a specialized
understanding
ofthe fullscopeof consumer
HN
protectionlaws,which arehighlynuanced. The casesalsorequire
knowledge of intricaciesof
CO
automobiles and a lexicon associatedwith them, as well as a
knowledge concerninghow toinvestigatethesematters. They also requireknowledge of auto
o
manufacturers’and dealers’protocolsforrepairing
vehicles.
et
33. Generallyspeaking,clientsof the
firmarebenefittedby theexperienceof this
firm
insofaraswork-product from other casescan beused inthiscase aswell. Hence, a substantial
wk
amount of timewas saved bynot needingto draft
each document from scratchand little
timewas
Rm
needed to“get upto speed”in this
specializedareaof law. In effect,
HMA also benefitted
when
itcomes to adeterminationof reasonableattorney’sfeestobe paidbecause therearenumerous
cost-savingtechniquesemployed by thefirm.
34, HMA itself
made thismattermore complex bymaintaining it had
no liability
and
decliningto submitreasonable offerstosettle
the matterfornearly 3 yearsof litigation.
HMA
should have acknowledged the defectsinPlaintiff's
vehicleand resolvedthematter beforethis
casewas ever filed,
especially
consideringtheSubject Vehiclehad beenpresentedfor repair
over
40-times.Instead,
HMA engaged
RQ
inexpensive litigation,
includingdenyingallliability,
engaging
in extensive
BQ
discoveryand forcingPlaintiff’s
counselto expend numerous hourspreparingfor
trial.With little
effort,
HMA could have resolvedthismattermuch earlierand savedtens of
thousands inattorney’sfees,costsand expenses by doing so. Thus, HMA
bho
ultimatelycaused
fees,
substantial and
costs, expenses tobe incurred.
35. As shown by the number of cases discussedherein and the positiveresults
achievedon behalfof eachclient,
thehourly rateis reasonable
and thenumber of hoursexpended
arereasonable. The feesincurredinthislitigation
arethedirectresult
of HMA’s own dismissive
8
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
approach tohandlinglemon lawmatters.
He
I declareunder penaltyofperjury thattheforegoing istrueand correct.Executed this
19thday of September,2019, inLos Angeles, California.
WD
Sgtha
Fe
OH
SépehrAaghighian, Esq.
NHN
NY
Oo
co
ee
Oe
OR
RQ
RO
BRO
9
DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES
EXHIBIT A
HACKLER
| DAGHIGHIAN
MARTINO &
NOVAK
10250
Constellation
Bivd.
» Suite 2500
- Los Angeles
« CA
= 90067
- USA
Tel:
310-887-1333
» Fax:
310-887-1334
» www.hdmnlaw.com
King, Anna v. HMA
Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0038637
Trial Date: July 1, 2019
E INVOICE
SD ~ Sepehr Daghighian,
Esq. - Principal Attorney -$400 (2017) / $490 (2018) $550 (2019) per hour
LSC ~ Larry S. Castruita, Esq. - Associate Attomey - $300 (2017) /$350 (2018) / $385 (2019) per hour
EKS - Erik K. Schmitt,
Esq. - Associate Attomey - $225 (2017) / $250 (2018) /$275 (2019) per hour
LCM- Lauren C. Martin, Esq. - Associate Attomey- $225 (2017) /$250 (2018) / $275 (2019)per/hour
KJ- Kevin Y. Jacobson,
Esq. - Associate Attomey-
$250 (2018) / $275 (2019)per/hour
AP.- Andrea
Plata - Paralegal - $75 per hour
Date Name Description Hours Rate / Hour
Preview
ee UY ORI SINAL HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. NR Sepehr Daghighian,(SBN 239349) 10250 ConstellationBlvd.,Suite2500 Los Angeles,CA 90067 SuperiorCourt ofCalifornia ounte afDinnar: WD Telephone: (310)887-1333 Facsimile: (310)887-1334 DEC 04 2019 FSF E-mail: sd@hdmnlaw.com Jake Chatters WA gpehoutive Officer & Clerk Attorneys forPlaintiff, y: ©. Lucatuorto, Deouty DW ANNA P. KING “SS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CO COUNTY OF PLACER Oo ANNA P.KING, Case No.:SCV0038637 ee Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ea VS. COUNSEL HACKLER, DAGHIGHIAN, MARTINO & ee NOVAK’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., a AG CaliforniaCorporation;andDOES 1 through [FiledConcurrentlywith Plaintiffs Notice ea 10,inclusive, ofMotion andMotion forAttorneys’Fees; XVA Memorandum in SupportThereof; Declarationof SteveMikhov] Defendants. Date:January 3,2020 Time: 8:30a.m. ROR Dept. 31 KR DN BR DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN eH I,Sepehr Daghighian,declareunder penaltyofperjurythe following: WN 1. Iam an attorney at law,duly licensed to practice before allcourtsintheStateof W California.I have been a licensed practitioner inthe StateofCaliforniasince2005;SBN 239349. FB I havepersonalknowledge ofallfactscontainedinthisdeclarationand,if called upon totestify, WO Icould and would competentlytestifytothetruthofeach statementcontainedherein. HD 2. Iam a licensedpractitioner and managing partneratHackler Daghighian Martino “SY & Novak, P.C.inLos Angeles, California.Inthe instant action,I represented Plaintiff Anna P. CO King inassociationwith KnightLaw Group, LLP, asleadtrialcounsel. oOo 3. Between 2015 to 2018 my rate litigation was $400 per hourfor services. litigation ele As istypically done inour industry, our firmperiodically increasesthehourlyratesofallcounsel. OOO eee On January 1,2018, my hourly ratewas increasedforthe first timein severalyearsto$490.00, and onJanuary 1,2019 to$550.00 inorderaccountforan adjustmentbased onincreasedlitigation ee experienceand theincreasedcostofallgoods/servicesassociated with legalservices. The hourly RE ROO rateincreasesthewas implemented throughout my firmremains comparable tothose chargedby otherfirms throughout themetropolitanarea. I graduatedfrom University ofCalifornia, Los FF Angeles with a Bachelor of Sciencedegree in Physicsand received my law degree from the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles,California. In settingmy hourlyrate,I have taken into FEF account suchfactorsasmy 12+ yearsoflitigation experience,theskills and knowledge acquired HF over thoseyears,and theratesreasonablycharged by otherattorneys in themetropolitanareain NO which I work. I havelitigated hundreds ofcasesduring thistimeincludingseveraldozen lemon NO law matters. My rateis commensurate with other practitioners inmy area providingcivil NO litigation services and is regularly paidby my clients forservices thataresimilartothoseprovided bBo toPlaintiff. My hourlyrate,and my associates’ hourly rates, are thesame in casesinwhich we representclients on an hourlyrateagreement asthey areherein thecontextof acontingencyfee and do nottake into the consideration risks additional associatedwiththe contingencynatureof Song Beverly Consumer Warranty My litigation. time are entries by reflected the “SD” initials before thedescriptionofwork performed onmy firm’sbill. In my billing statementsubmitted 1 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES alongwith thismotion,I reducedour billing for several of theinter-office conferencesandother administrative tasks,which occurred throughoutthislitigation.My firm’sbilling practiceisto YN reduce such itemsin our bills as a courtesyto ourclients. I offered WD theDefendant thatsame courtesyin my firm’sbillingstatement RP inthiscase. I haveperformed 0.5hours of work,which includedmy reviewand analysisofthecase file in ordertopreparethe casefortrial. I spent 6.50 OO hours preparing thisinstantmotion and accompanying documents. I anticipate I willspend NN another 7.0hours reviewingDefendant’s Opposition and preparing a replybrief.Ianticipate I Oo willspend another0.5 hoursattendingthehearingon thismotion. 4. Lauren C. Martinis anassociateattorney oO withmy firmand has been admittedto practicein Californiasince 2017. Ms. Martin graduated from Southwestern Law School’s S prestigiousSCALE program and was a member of the Women’s Law Societyand CriminalLaw BHA Society.She focusedon civillitigation research throughoutlaw schoolunder thesupervisionof ProfessorRonald Aronovsky, Esq. while alsoa full-timeextern atthe Los Angeles District OR Attorney’s Officein the Hardcore Gang Division.Ms. Martin also internedat an insurance BsSRaRBSBKRHSSCSERARAR subrogationcivillitigation firm and worked as anassociateata realestatelitigation firmwhere she worked primarilywithunlawful detaineractions. Her hourlyratein thismatteris$225/hour up throughDecember 31,2017 and$250/hour afterJanuary1,2018. As of January1,2019,Ms. Martin’shourly rateis$275/hour. Ms. Martin hasperformed 21.75 hours onthiscase,and her hours arereflected by theinitials “LCM” on our CaseInvoice. 5. Larry Castruitaisan associateattorneywithmy firm and hasbeen admitted to practiceinCaliforniasince2011. Mr. Castruitagraduatedfrom Southwestern Law School RO and, sincebeing admitted topractice, BO has focused on civil litigation. Mr. Castruita has successfully litigated dozens of mattersinstateand federalcourtsthroughout California. His hourlyratein thismatter is$300/hour up throughDecember 31, 2017,$350/hour afterJanuary 1,2018, and $375/hour afterJanuary1,2019. Mr. Castruitahasperformed 15.75 hoursof work on this case, and hishours arereflected by theinitials “LSC” on our Case Invoice. 6. Erik Schmitt isan associateattorneywith my firm and has been admitted to practiceinCaliforniasince2017. Mr. Schmitt graduatedmagna cum laude from Southwestern 2 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES Law School’sprestigious SCALE program and was a member ofthe SouthwesternLaw Review. He alsoserved asa judicial internforboththe Honorable StephenA. Marcus YN of theLos Angeles SuperiorCourt and theHonorable PhillipS.Gutierrezof theUnited States DistrictCourtforthe PW CentralDistrict of California. His hourlyrateinthismatterwas $225/hour upto January1,2018, $250/hour from January 1,2018 to January 1,2019, HN and $275/hourafterJanuary 1,2019. Mr. Schmitthas performed 7.00hours ofwork onthiscase,and hishoursare reflected by theinitials QHD “EKS” on ourCase Invoice.I anticipate Mr. Schmittwillbe performing another28.00 hoursof Oo work reviewing Defendant’soppositionand preparinga replybrief. oOo 7. Kevin Y. Jacobson isan associateattorneywith my firmand has admitted to practiceinCalifornia since2018. Mr. Jacobsongraduated inthetop25% of his classfrom Loyola rr DHS Law SchoolinLos Angeles, California. Priortobeingadmitted tothebar,Mr. Jacobsonhad been a paralegal atmy office forapproximately six-years. Not onlyishe well-versedinpersonalinjury law, contract law, and intellectual property law,Mr. Jacobson isparticularly knowledgeable in Ok the Song-Beverly Act asa resultofyears ofexperienceassistingmy officein trial preparation RDARaAaRE relatedtasks. Mr. rateinthismatteris$250/hour upthrough December 31,2018 and $275/hour afterJanuary1,2018. He performed 224.00 hoursor work on case. this 8. Andrea Plata isa paralegalatmy office. Ms. Platahas been a paralegalatmy officeforover a yearandiswell-versedin litigation support.Ms. Platapreviouslyworked atthe BSRSSGCSR Merced District Attorney’sofficeassisting attorneyswith preparingtrial binders andothertrial preparationrelated tasks. She hasworked with me on thiscaseinorderto assist withopening the file, preparing andfilingdocuments with theCourt, RD servingcorrespondence and documents on opposing counsel, and similarsuch tasks. BRO Ms. Plata’shourly rate is$75/hour, which is commensurate BRO withotherparalegalsintheLos Angeles areathatprovide litigation support. Ms. Plata’shasperformed 11.75 hoursofwork onthiscase,and herhours arereflected by theinitials R “AP” on our Case Invoice. bo Boose 9. The totalamount of feesincurredby my office to preparethiscase fortrial was $91,700.00,inclusiveofthe timeto draft thismotion and supportingpapers,and theanticipated time forreviewing the opposition, draftinga reply,and appearing atthehearing. A true and 3 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES correctcopy of the billing incurredin prosecution of this matter bymy firmisattachedasExhibit “A.” HDMN alsorequestsa modest .5enhancement, intheamount of$45,850.00,toaccountfor HO the delay in payment and contingent riskposed by this case, for totalattorneys’fees of WO $137,550.00. FP 10. In consideringthe appropriateratesto charge ina matter AW such asthis,Ihave revieweda reportentitled United StatesConsumer Law AttorneyFee Survey Reportpublished DO in 2017 reflectingratesfor 2015 to 2016. Based on thefactspresented inthe SI Report,I have determined thattherateschargedby theattorneysinthiscase arecommensurate withthehourly A ratescharged byother attorneys with comparable experiencein consumer oS rightslaw. On Pages 1 — 16,thepurpose and methodology of theReport isdescribed. On Pages 42 — 45,the Report lle sets forth the average hourly ratesof consumer law attorneys in Californiabased on EEUU experience.The informationreflectedinthesepages supportsthereasonablenessof theattorney REO hourlyratescharged inthiscase,which areequivalent, if notbelow,the averagerateofattorneys who practiceconsumer law in California.On pages 360 — 365, the Reportidentifiescasesin ROHR Californiathathave usedthisReport assupporting evidencein feeawards. The entirereportis 407 pages so I have attached only therelevantpages dealing with Californiaattorneys Re and Californialaw.A trueand correctcopy ofthereportisattachedheretoas Exhibit“B.” RRO 11. In December 2018, Mikhov of Knight Law Group calledme to discussthe likelihoodoftrialinthismatterand asked ifI wouldassociateintothecase,to preparethecase RFR fortrial and actas leadtrial counsel if the caseindeed proceeded totrial. My office receivedthe NO case file and documents, reviewed them, calendareddeadlines,and began preparingPlaintiff's PPO trial exhibitbinderbased on discoveryresponses. NO 12. InDecember 2018, my law officewas associated intothe casetocome on aslead BP trial counsel and preparethe casefortrial.Atrue and correctcopy ofNotice ofAssociationof BO Counsel isattachedheretoasExhibit “C.” 13. With trialonlya few months away, HDMN began in earnest analyzing thecase fileandpreparingthe caseforjurytrial. 14. | Had HMA actedreasonably insettlingthismattersooner,the need toassociate 4 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES HDMN and allofHMDN’s fees couldhave been completely avoided.The message HMA sent was clear, Plaintiffwould be forced take thismatter to trialif theywanted to receive NY compensation forthewillful that violations HMA committed. WY 15. | HDMN then began preparing fortrialby,among other preparing things, trial Fe documents, i.e. JointExhibitList,JointWitnessList,JointStatementof the AH Case,Proposed Voir Dire Questions, Proposed CACI Jury Instructions, PlaintiffsSpecial HD JuryInstructions, and Special Verdict Forms., etc.;preparing trialexamination KN outlines,reviewing deposition Oa and transcripts summaries. drafting 16. Additionally,HDMN worked with Plaintiff's oO expertto understandthe technical sideof the caseand to undercutHMA’s anticipateddefenses.Trialcounselalso reviewedthe AS voluminous document productionby HMA, analyzingdepositiontranscripts, preparingnotices toappear, andotherwisepreparing thematterfortrial. eBARARBaAREBHKR 17. | HDMN alsodraftedmotions in limine(and oppositionstoHMA’s own motions ea inlimine)ahead of the trial date.Again, Plaintiff benefitted from counsel’s experience inthis area of law,as each 6to 10-page motion requiredonly 0.5hours, asopposed to multiplehoursfor each, 18. On June 20, 2019, Plaintifftook the deposition of HMA’s Person Most Knowledgeables (“PMK”) Sandy Zielmosky andEric Sim. Both depositions provided favorable testimony thatundercut HMA’s defensethat the issuesrelating to GC backup camera were not SF covered bythe basicwarranty. OR 19. _ Plaintiff furtherpreparedforthismatterby attendingaCivilTrialConference YX and BORD finalizing trialdocuments such subpoenas,trial graphics,and opposing Defendant’smotions in BRSBS limine. 20. Finaltrialpreparationswere completed inMay and June 2019, anda jury trial No commenced in PlacerCounty onJuly 1,2019 beforeHonorable Michael W. Jonesand concluded SSR on July15,2019. 21. At theconclusionof thetrial, asindicatedby theJudgment on JuryVerdictentered on September 6, 2019,the juryfound thatthe SubjectVehicle didsufferfrom covered defects 5 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES thatsubstantially impairedPlaintiff's use,value orsafety,andthatHMA did fail toconform the eS vehicletowarranty orreplaceor repurchaseitafter a reasonablenumber ofopportunities. NY 22. Accordingly, Plaintiffwas awarded damages in the amount WD of $30,412.43, representing a fullstatutoryrepurchaseafter FP applicationof a mileage offset.Neitherparty appealedthe result. : OH 23. Therefore, NHN Plaintiff isentitled toallreasonableattorney’s feesincurredby HDMN (plusthosein connectionwith thecollection HN of suchfees).All ofthefees incurredinthis matter resulted Oo from HMA’s obstinacy,refusaltocomply withCalifornia’sconsumer protection laws, and failure to do rightbyMs. King despiteknowing oO of theseverityofthe issuesintheSubject Vehicle. eek 24. Plaintiff, asthe prevailingpartyin thisaction,made every reasonableeffortto resolvethepayment ofHDMN’s feesbut was forcedtofilethis Motion withthe Court. 25. | HDMN’s hourly rateshave been approved by numerous courtsthroughoutthe StateofCalifornia. For example,on August 8,2018, Judge John P.Doyle awarded 100% of the lodestarfeesrequestedby pw motion inthe totalamount of$72,478.75 inthe matterof Morgan v. FCA (Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt, CaseNo. BC625668). The courtindicatedit would not considerratesof defensecounsel and found thatthehourly rateswere reasonablefor‘that venue and thatthetime incurredwere reasonable. The ratesrequestedby motion includedmy rateof $400 perhour. A trueand correctcopy ofthesigned orderisattachedhereto asExhibit D. RD BRO 26. On September 20,2017, Judge Gail R. Feuer awarded $227,228.00 in attorney BRO feesand $31,712.55in costs and expenses inthematterof AnitaLongin vs.Ford Motor Company (Los Angeles SuperiorCourt, CaseNo. BC564186). Specifically, theCourt deemed my hourly rateof$400 per hourreasonable.The attorneyfeeaward represents98% recovery of the lodestar bo feesand costsrequestedby motion in thematter.A trueand correctcopy ofthe signedorder is attachedheretoas ExhibitE. 27. On June 5, 2019, JudgeJanet M. Frangie awarded $184,104.69 inattorneyfees and $49,666.22 incostsand expensesin thematterof BlascoReal Estate,Inc., et al. v. FCAUS 6 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES LLC (SanBernardino SuperiorCourt,Case No. CIV DS1609641). Specifically, theCourtdeemed ee my hourlyrateof $490 perhour NYO reasonable,aswell as$250 per hour formy associate,ErikK. Schmitt.A trueand correctcopy oftheorder isattached WD heretoasExhibit F. 28. On July 10,2019,Judge BR Angel M. Bermudez awarded $40,978.75inattorneyfees in the matter of Jose Cisneros v. FCA US LLC (Riverside OO Superior Court, Case No. MCC1700337). The NWN Court awarded 100% ofthefeesrequested byPlaintiff’s counsel,including findingmy rateof$550 per YN hourreasonable inthecommunity, aswell asthatof my associates Larry Castruita CO ($385 per hour)and ErikK. Schmitt ($275per hour).A trueand correct copy of theorder isattachedheretoasExhibit G. o 29. On August 19, 2019,Judge Norman P.Tarleawarded $95,497.50inattorneyfees and $28,546.20 incostsand expensesinthe matterof RitaGamez v. FCAUS LLC (Los Angeles ee Superior Court, Case No. BC638011). The Court awarded 100% of the feesrequested by Plaintiff's counsel,includingfindingmy hourlyrateof $490 perhour reasonable,aswell in as that ofmy associate, ErikK. Schmitt ($250per hour). A trueandcorrectcopy ofthe orderisattached heretoas ExhibitH. 30. I requesta multiplierof.5 based on my contingentfee,the riskand delay in payment associatedwith acontingentfee scenario, and theresultachieved. Such amultiplieris reasonableand towardsthe lowend under theestablished law. (Wershba vy. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th224, 255.) Plaintiff’s attorneys are paidonly if Plaintiffs prevail, unlike Defendant’s attorneys who getpaid monthly regardless of theoutcome. Moreover, Defendant’s OND attorneys BRO typically have acontinuingand ongoing relationship, whereas thisfirmwillmost likely BRO nothave the opportunitytorepresentPlaintiff again. 31. Itisnot uncommon for attorney’s fees andcoststo exceed theclient’s damages. The Legislatureacknowledged such a circumstance,which isthereason behind thefeeshifting provisionof theSong-Beverly Act. Otherwise,consumers would be leftwithoutopportunityfor redresswhen theirdamages werenot enough foran attorneytotakethe caseona contingentfee or hourly ratebasis. Such a resultoccurs in largepart because of dealerships’or vehicle manufacturers’refusalto adhereto statutory laws protectingconsumers,resistancetohonoring 7 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES consumers’ complaints,and generallyplaying games or simply abusingdiscovery procedures. Re For example, HMA could have NYO avoidedpaying any attorneyfeeswhatsoever had itadmittedto itswrongdoing earlyon. Instead,HMA engaged inexpensive litigation, and WO drove up feesand costsby,among otherthings, engaging BR inextensivediscovery,stone-walling Plaintiff's discovery efforts. OH 32. Lemon law DWN casesarenotsimple actions.They require a specialized understanding ofthe fullscopeof consumer HN protectionlaws,which arehighlynuanced. The casesalsorequire knowledge of intricaciesof CO automobiles and a lexicon associatedwith them, as well as a knowledge concerninghow toinvestigatethesematters. They also requireknowledge of auto o manufacturers’and dealers’protocolsforrepairing vehicles. et 33. Generallyspeaking,clientsof the firmarebenefittedby theexperienceof this firm insofaraswork-product from other casescan beused inthiscase aswell. Hence, a substantial wk amount of timewas saved bynot needingto draft each document from scratchand little timewas Rm needed to“get upto speed”in this specializedareaof law. In effect, HMA also benefitted when itcomes to adeterminationof reasonableattorney’sfeestobe paidbecause therearenumerous cost-savingtechniquesemployed by thefirm. 34, HMA itself made thismattermore complex bymaintaining it had no liability and decliningto submitreasonable offerstosettle the matterfornearly 3 yearsof litigation. HMA should have acknowledged the defectsinPlaintiff's vehicleand resolvedthematter beforethis casewas ever filed, especially consideringtheSubject Vehiclehad beenpresentedfor repair over 40-times.Instead, HMA engaged RQ inexpensive litigation, includingdenyingallliability, engaging in extensive BQ discoveryand forcingPlaintiff’s counselto expend numerous hourspreparingfor trial.With little effort, HMA could have resolvedthismattermuch earlierand savedtens of thousands inattorney’sfees,costsand expenses by doing so. Thus, HMA bho ultimatelycaused fees, substantial and costs, expenses tobe incurred. 35. As shown by the number of cases discussedherein and the positiveresults achievedon behalfof eachclient, thehourly rateis reasonable and thenumber of hoursexpended arereasonable. The feesincurredinthislitigation arethedirectresult of HMA’s own dismissive 8 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES approach tohandlinglemon lawmatters. He I declareunder penaltyofperjury thattheforegoing istrueand correct.Executed this 19thday of September,2019, inLos Angeles, California. WD Sgtha Fe OH SépehrAaghighian, Esq. NHN NY Oo co ee Oe OR RQ RO BRO 9 DECLARATION OF SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR COUNSEL HDMN’S ATTORNEYS’ FEES EXHIBIT A HACKLER | DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK 10250 Constellation Bivd. » Suite 2500 - Los Angeles « CA = 90067 - USA Tel: 310-887-1333 » Fax: 310-887-1334 » www.hdmnlaw.com King, Anna v. HMA Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0038637 Trial Date: July 1, 2019 E INVOICE SD ~ Sepehr Daghighian, Esq. - Principal Attorney -$400 (2017) / $490 (2018) $550 (2019) per hour LSC ~ Larry S. Castruita, Esq. - Associate Attomey - $300 (2017) /$350 (2018) / $385 (2019) per hour EKS - Erik K. Schmitt, Esq. - Associate Attomey - $225 (2017) / $250 (2018) /$275 (2019) per hour LCM- Lauren C. Martin, Esq. - Associate Attomey- $225 (2017) /$250 (2018) / $275 (2019)per/hour KJ- Kevin Y. Jacobson, Esq. - Associate Attomey- $250 (2018) / $275 (2019)per/hour AP.- Andrea Plata - Paralegal - $75 per hour Date Name Description Hours Rate / Hour