Preview
FILED BY FAX
Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294)
Kainoa
THETA
Aliviado
LAW
(Bar
FIRM,
No.
LLP
308382)
SUPERIOR
FILED
COURT QF CALIFOR
COUNTY OF PLACER ~
DEC 19 2019
15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270
Lawndale, CA 90260
Telephone: (424) 297-3103
Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 JAKE CHATTERS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK
By: C. Vallan-Brown, Deputy
Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637
OE’
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SOHEYL
TAHSILDOOST
eee OOOO IN SUPPORT OOS
OF
OE
VS. DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
EO
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
OOO
California Corporation, and DOES | ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND
through 10, inclusive, EXPENSES
Defendants. Dept.: 3]
Judge: Hon. Michael Jones
Date: January 3, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016
Trial Date: July 1, 2019
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) submits the following Declaration of
Soheyl Tahsildoost in support of itsoppositions to Plaintiff's Motion for Counsel Hackler,
Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C.’s Attorney’s Fees (*‘HDMN Fee Motion’) filed by
24 Plaintiff's co-counsel Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. and Plaintiff's Motion for
25 Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses filed by Plaintiff's co-counsel Knight Law Group LLP and
26 Altman Law Group (“KLG Fee Motion):
27 M/
28
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EX PENSES
//
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
I,Sohey! Tahsildoost, declare as follows:
1. I am a partner in the law firm of Theta Law Firm, LLP, attorneys of record for
Defendant Hyundai Motor America. If called as a witness, I could and would competently
testify under oath to the following facts of which Ihave personal knowledge.
es On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filedthis action against HMA alleging violation of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in relation to her purchase of the subject 2010
Hyundai Tucson.
3. On March |, 2017, HMA made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer
(“First 998 Offer”) to Plaintiff wherein HMA offered Plaintiff $5,000.00.
4. On May 26, 2017 HMA made a second Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer
(“Second 998 Offer’) giving Plaintiffthe choice of: (1) a lump sum of $37,106.38 or (2) a
statutory repurchase pursuant to Civ. Code, §§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2); 1794, subd. (b)), and
wherein HMA offered Plaintiff the additional choice of (1) $5,000 in attorney’s fees, costs,
expenses, or (2) attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs by motion.
5. The firstvisit for any complaint in this case was at 12,459 miles. The vehicle had
11 miles on itat the time of sale. Therefore, for purposes, of the Song-Beverly Act’s mileage
offset calculation, the number of miles would be 12,448 miles, or the mileage at the first visit
less the miles at the time of sale.
6. During Plaintiff's near decade of ownership of the vehicle, Plaintiff complained
of a single issue with the subject vehicle’s back-up camera and presented the vehicle for four
repair visits.
7. Plaintiff's counsel routinely failsto provide a breakdown of their damages in
25 litigation and took that same approach in the instant case. However, there was no dispute in this
26 case regarding the amounts of incidental and/or consequential damages.
27 8. On January 15, 2019, after reviewing all the submitted papers and hearing
2
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
argument in support and in opposition ofHMA’s motion for summary adjudication as to
Plaintiff's implied warranty claim, the Court granted HMA’s motion for summary adjudication
on statute of limitation grounds. This was the same claim that HMA challenged at the pleading
stage. HMA billed less than 35 hours combined to do all of the following: draft the motion and
supporting documents, including alldeclarations and exhibits, the separate statement of
undisputed material fact and request forjudicial notice, as well as the reply insupport of the
motion and prepare for and attend the hearing in-person in Placer County. HMA attended the
hearing in-person largely because there was an ex-parte application that was also being filed to
continue trial that same day.
D. Trial in this matter commenced on July 1, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the jury
reached itsverdict awarding Plaintiff $30,412.43 in total damages. The verdict was $6,693.95
less than HMA’s Second 998 Offer. Plaintiff had asked the jury during closing for a verdict in
excess of $90,000.00. Plaintiff surrendered the vehicle as part of the jury verdict granting a
repurchase of the subject vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act.
10. On September 17, 2019, HMA requested costs be awarded to itin the amount of
$37,861.33 given that Plaintiff failed toobtain a judgment more favorable than HMA’s Second
998 Offer. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff served her notice of motion and motion to tax and/or
strike Defendant’s costs seeking to strike some of Defendant’s claimed costs. Specifically,
Plaintiff's reply stated “[p]rior to trial,Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai” or
20 Defendant’) had made an offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in the
Zl amount of $37,106.38 which was declined by Plaintiff. As a result, Hyundai may recover those
22 costs accrued only from the time of the May 26, 2017 offer.”
11. Defendant submitted its opposition to Plaintiff's motion on October 28, 2019
24 noting in itsarguments that Plaintiff did not contest that HMA isowed at least between
25 $3,096.57 and $14,498.71 in costs and that Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment
26 than HMA’s 998 offer dated May 26, 2017.
27 12. Plaintiff filed a reply on November 1,2019. In that reply, Plaintiff noted that the
3
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
Court does have discretion to award Defendant expert witness fees, once again conceding that
HMA’s Second 998 Offer was valid and Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment
than that offer.
13. The Parties appeared before the Court on November 22, 2019, the Honorable
Michael W. Jones, judge presiding. After hearing argument, the Court awarded costs to Hyundai
Motor America inthe amount of $31,254.46, including awarding Defendant allof the requested
expert fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998. Accounting for the costs awarded
to HMA, Plaintiffis actually owes HMA money since the jury verdict is$842.03 less than what
HMA was awarded in costs.
14. HMA timely filed and served itsMotion to Strike or Tax the Costs of Plaintiff,set
forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs, on December 3, 2019 via overnight mail and regular
mail. The hearing on HMA’s motion isset for January 10, 2020.
15. Plaintiff's counsel Knight Law Group, LLP (“KLG”), and its predecessor entity
O’Connor & Mikhov, along with their contractors such as the Altman Law Group (“ALG”) and
Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. (*“HDMN’) filehundreds of lemon law cases every
year. From January 2016 to November 2017, KLG, along with itspredecessor entity, O’Connor
& Mikhov, LLP, filed approximately 2,236 lawsuits, with zero known pre-litigation demands.
Furthermore, Knight Law aggressively pursues itscases and routinely takes them to trialin an
effort to drive up their attorney’s fees. This isin stark contrast to the vast majority of lemon law
attorneys, many of whom resolve cases via pre-litigation demands.
16. Similar to the situation in thiscase, KLG, ALG and HDMN represented plaintiff
Sara Castaneda in the matter of Sara Castaneda v. Hyundai Motor America, Kern County Court
Case No. BCV-16-102254, filed September 23, 2016 and that was tried to verdict in September
2018. Plaintiff was offered two CCP 998 Offers, one only one month after HMA was served
with the Complaint, and a second CCP 998 offer a few months after. Plaintiff, presumably on
the advice of counsel, rejected both offers. Plaintiff proceeded to trial and while the jury ruled in
plaintiff's favor, plaintiff failed to beat either of HMA’s CCP 998 Offers. HMA’s CCP 998
4
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
offers were both found to be valid and enforceable and HMA was awarded over $27,000.00 in
costs and expenses. When accounting for HMA’s costs award, plaintiff received approximately
half of what HMA had offered to plaintiffvia CCP 998 nearly two years earlier. Moreover,
plaintiff's attorney’s fees and costs were cut offas of the first CCP 998 offer resulting in plaintiff
and KLG, ALG and HDMN being awarded a total of $1,387.50 in attorney’s fees and $527.41 in
costs and expenses for over two years of litigation. The CCP 998 offers upheld in Castaneda
were almost identical to HMA’s May 26, 2017 CCP 998 Offer in this case.
17. Knight Law Group has accepted numerous CCP 998 Offers from HMA that are
identical or nearly identical to the 998 offers made in this case. In particular, Plaintiffs counsel
has accepted 998 Offers prepared and served by my office on behalf of HMA in the following
cases: (1) Christine Goldman and David Jette v.HMA, Orange County Court, Case No. 34-2016-
00883673-CU-BC-CIC, (2) Robert Adams v.HMA, Los Angeles County Court, Case No.
BC638330, and (3) Eulalia Alvernaz v. HMA, Santa Clara County Court, Case No. 16CV301838.
True and correct copies of the as-accepted 998 offers in these cases are attached hereto as
Exhibit G, Exhibit H and Exhibit Irespectively.
18. I have attended many depositions and hearings in cases against Plaintiff's
counsel’s firm where itis clear that the plaintiffs are speaking to their lawyers for the firsttime.
19. Plaintiff's copy-paste First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) contained improper
claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of
20 “fitness” that was further erroneously alleged as a single cause of action (because clearly no
21 attorney actually reviewed the complaint prior to filing to ensure it stated a cognizable claim).
22 Plaintiff's counsel alleges these claims in every case, regardless of whether they actually apply.
Plaintiff's implied warranty claim was untimely on the face of the Complaint (and clearly had
24 not actually been reviewed by an attorney) and Plaintiff's allegations utterly failed to allege the
25 unique facts supporting a claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness (and instead was a
26 copy-paste of every other complaint). The motion was granted in part and the implied warranty
27 of merchantability claim was ultimately eliminated by HMA’s motion for summary adjudication.
5
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
HMA billed less than 5 hours to draft the motion and reply and to prepare for and attend the
hearing.
20. KLG sends virtually the same meet and confer letterconcerning responses to
Plaintiff's discovery in almost every case. KLG sent this form letter toHMA in this case on
March 10, 2017 to “meet and confer” regarding HMA’s discovery responses. This letterwas
accompanied by no less than eight other virtually identical letters, save for particular case
identifying information. KLG continues to serve this form letterto this day.
21. KLG and their contractors filethe same copy-paste template fee motion inevery
case. These motions are virtually always drafted by KLG contract attorneys Hadi Gerami and
Christopher Thomas but the motions are the same regardless of which of the two drafts it.
22. The average hourly rate for the four firms HMA employs innearly all of itscases
is $183/hour. This includes trialcounsel with 20 and 30 years of experienced practicing in this
area. This average rate reflects the highly competitive nature of the legal market, and saturation
of attorneys in the area.
23), I was trialcounsel inthis matter and attended every day of trial. KLG, ALG and
HDMN all sent attorneys to the trial inPlacer County. Plaintiff's counsel, Kevin Jaacobson,
attended the trialon behalf of HDMN, however Mr. Jacobson did littleto no work at trial. Mr.
Jacobson’s primary duty was to operate the computer insupport of Plaintiff's case inchief.
ALG and KLG’s representatives were responsible for actually trying the case.
24. HMA and my firm are aware of cases brought by KLG, HDMN and ALG in
Placer County where each of these firms’ rates were reduced with the top rate being no more
than $400 an hour.
25: Attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a spreadsheet setting forth HMA’s objections to
and positions on Plaintiff's counsel KLG and ALG’s billing, addressing every billing entry made
25 and recommending a reasonable adjustment for each. Based on Exhibit A and supporting
26 arguments herein, Plaintiff should be awarded no more than $1,875 for attorney’s fees for work
27 by ALG and KLG.
6
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, is a spreadsheet setting forth HMA’s objections to
and positions on Plaintiffs counsel HDMN’s billing,addressing every billing entry made and
recommending a reasonable adjustment for each. Based on Exhibit B and supporting arguments
herein, Plaintiff should be awarded no attorneys fees for work by HDMN.
27. A true and correct copy of HMA’s May 26, 2017 Code of Civil Procedure section
998 offer is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
28. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Tax HMA’s Costs is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
29. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply in support of itsMotion to Strike or
Tax HMA’s Costs isattached hereto as Exhibit E.
30. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or
Tax HMA’s Costs isattached hereto as Exhibit F.
31. A true and correct copy of the opinion in O'Green v.Kia Motors America, Inc.
(2018 WL 2296604, 2d. Civil No. B282366) isattached hereto as Exhibit J.
32. A true and correct copy of the ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees,
Costs and Expenses inthe matter of Sara Castaneda v.HMA, Kern County Court Case No.
BCV-16-102254 is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
33. A true and correct copy of the the Memorandum of Points and Authorities for
Plaintiff's Opposition to HMA’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition is attached hereto as
20 Exhibit L.
21 34. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities for
22 Plaintiff's Opposition to HMA’s Motion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection is attached hereto as
23 Exhibit M.
24 35; A true and correct copy of the Ruling granting HMA sanctions in the amount of
25 $1,400.00 on itsMotion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection is attached hereto as Exhibit N.
26 36. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Association of Counse for Hackler,
27 Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. is attached hereto as Exhibit O.
7
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
37. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order granting HMA’s Motion for
Summary Adjudication as tothe implied warranty claim in this case is attached hereto as Exhibit
P,
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing istrue and correct.
Executed on December 19, 2019 at Lawndale, California.
SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST
25
26
27
28
8
DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES
EXHIBIT A
>,
a ae Claimed |Claimed
plaintiff's
| Suggested
"MAS | « epost d
Billing g
Ent Entry NBEESES Reasonable
Date Initials Bee Rate 5 uggested Hourly Actual Basisi
Actual Fee For i
Reduction
Fee Reasonable
Rate
Hours
$550 foran initial
phone call
and
“evaluation”isunlikely
especially
where the evaluationisallegedly
performed by theprimary
Initial principle
of thefirm,Steve
communication Mikhov. In reality,
thisintake
withclientand was likely
not handled byan
evaluationof attorneyat all.
Undated pre-
client's
claims SBM 1.00} $550.00 $550.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}litigation
work isnot recoverable.
Analyzevehicle was alredybilledtoevaluatethe
documentation SBM 0.80} $550.00 $440.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]client's
claims.Further,undated
Communication Undated pre-litigation
work is
withClient SBM 0.50} $550.00 $275.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}not recoverable.
Communication Likelyexaggerated butno
withClient 10/27/16}ALM 0.50]$350.00 $175.00 $250 0.50 $125.00}redcutionof hours.
A form complainttakes atmost
DraftComplaint 10/27/16}ALM 0.50}$350.00 $175.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]10 minutes toprepare.
Review and sign Signinga Complaintthat youdid
Complaint 10/27/16}SBM 0.10]$550.00 $55.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}notdraftisnot abillable
entry.
Review file
in Filereviewisgenerallynot
anticipation
of billable
especially
where the file
drafting
discovery was recentlyreviewedby
requeststoDefense] 11/30/16|ALM 0.40}$350.00 $140.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]another attorney.
DraftForm ROGs to DraftingForm Interrogatories
Def 11/30/16]ALM 0.20}$350.00 $70.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|takesmaybe 5 minutes.
Plaintiff's
counselpropounds the
same copy-paste discoveryin
DraftSpecialROGs every cas.As such,ittookmaybe
toDef and 10 minutes tochange thecase
Declaration 11/30/16]ALM 0.80}$350.00 $280.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]information.
Plaintiff's
counselpropounds the
same copy-paste discoveryin
everycas. As such,it took
maybe
10 minutes tochange thecase
DraftRFA toDef 11/30/16]ALM 0.40]$350.00 $140.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]information.
Plaintiff's
counselpropounds the
same copy-paste discoveryin
everycas. As such,it took
maybe
10 minutes tochange thecase
DraftRFP toDef 11/30/16}ALM 0.60]$350.00 $210.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]information.
Review and revise
letter
to Defense Form letterthataccompanies
enclosingPtf's Plaintiff's
discoveryineverycase
discoveryrequests 11/30/16]ALM 0.10]$350.00 $35.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]but noreduction ofhours.
Thisiscopy-paste Complaint.
Moreover, thisFirst
Amended
Complaint would have bene
unnecessary had Plaintiff's
counseleven attempted to
Draft Amended
First adequately their
allege claim
Complaint 12/08/16]AH 0.30]$325.00 $97.50 $250 0.00 $0.00]intially.
Review and revise
letter
to Defensere
CMC;
initial Thisisaform letterPlaintiff's
Review file 01/19/17|CS 0.20]$375.00 $75.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|counselsends inevery case.
_ a
Thisisduplicatereview bytrial
Reviewed file counselwho was not involvedin
materials, thiscaseforanother year after
pleadings,repair thisentryand wellafterHMA's
ordersand Second CCP 998. Trial
did not
documents 01/20/17}BCA 0.70]$650.00 $455.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}commence untilJuly2019.
Review Def's
Stipulated
ProtectiveOrderre Thisstipulatedprotective
order
Doc isonlythree pageslong butno
Production 01/30/17}KSC 0.30] $375.00 $112.50 $250 0.30 $75.00|reductionin hours.
Reviewed casefile, There was no suchMotion to
documents, Compel hearing.Thisentry
pleadings,
and should beforJanuary 2018 when
prepared for HMA's Motion toCompel the
Motion toCompel depositionwas heard. Blatant
Client's
Deposition overreachingby Plaintiff's
hearing. 01/31/17|JEE 0.80} $450.00 $360.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]counsel.
Review and revise
Case Management
Statement;
DraftNoticeofJury CMS isaform document that
Fees 02/01/17|CS 0.60} $375.00 $225.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]staffcanprepare in5 minutes.
Review Def'sCase
Management Review ofa CMS takesmaybe
Statement and two minutes especially
ina
Noticeof JuryFees 02/06/17|KSC 0.20] $375.00 $75.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]lemon law case.
No legitimatefirmtakes1.2
hours "reviewing"form
Review and analyze interrogatoryresponses.At
Def'sResponses to most, it take
15 minutesto
Form ROGs 02/10/17}ALM 1.20]$350.00 $420.00 $250 0.30 $75.00]}reviewtheseresponses.
Taal aaa
Again,no legitimatefirmthat
actuallybills
its
clients
takes
hours reviewingdiscovery
Review and analyze responses,especiallyinalemon
Def'sResponses to law case.At most, it took
30
SpecialROGs 02/10/17|ALM 1.80]$350.00 $630.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]minutes to review.
Review and analyze
Def'sResponses to
RFA 02/10/17|ALM 0.70] $350.00 $245.00 $250 0.50 $125.00|Same asabove.
Review and analyze
Def'sResponses to
RFP 02/10/17}ALM 1.40}$350.00 $490.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]Same asabove.
Thisproduction consistedlargely
Review and analyze of repairrecordsPlaintiff
was
Def'sDocument alreadyin possessionof.That
Production 02/10/17}ALM 0.40] $350.00 $140.00 $250 0.40 $100.00]saidno reductionof hours.
Review Def'sNotice
ofAddress Change 02/13/17}ALM 0.10} $350.00 $35.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|Thisisnot abillable
entry.
Review Court's
tentativeruling
in
connectionwith
upcoming CMC
hearing 02/17/17)ALM 0.10}$350.00 $35.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]No reduction ofhours.
a, Pa,
Alltime associatedwiththe
Review Deft's motion tostrikeisnot
Motion toStrike recoverablesinceitwas
First
Amended completely avoidablehad
Complaint; Plaintiff
Preview
FILED BY FAX Soheyl Tahsildoost (Bar No. 271294) Kainoa THETA Aliviado LAW (Bar FIRM, No. LLP 308382) SUPERIOR FILED COURT QF CALIFOR COUNTY OF PLACER ~ DEC 19 2019 15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 270 Lawndale, CA 90260 Telephone: (424) 297-3103 Facsimile: (424) 286-2244 JAKE CHATTERS EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK By: C. Vallan-Brown, Deputy Attorneys for defendant Hyundai Motor America SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER ANNA P. KING, Case No.: SCV0038637 OE’ Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST eee OOOO IN SUPPORT OOS OF OE VS. DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR EO AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR OOO California Corporation, and DOES | ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND through 10, inclusive, EXPENSES Defendants. Dept.: 3] Judge: Hon. Michael Jones Date: January 3, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Complaint Filed: October 28, 2016 Trial Date: July 1, 2019 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“HMA”) submits the following Declaration of Soheyl Tahsildoost in support of itsoppositions to Plaintiff's Motion for Counsel Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C.’s Attorney’s Fees (*‘HDMN Fee Motion’) filed by 24 Plaintiff's co-counsel Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. and Plaintiff's Motion for 25 Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses filed by Plaintiff's co-counsel Knight Law Group LLP and 26 Altman Law Group (“KLG Fee Motion): 27 M/ 28 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EX PENSES // DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST I,Sohey! Tahsildoost, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Theta Law Firm, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant Hyundai Motor America. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify under oath to the following facts of which Ihave personal knowledge. es On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filedthis action against HMA alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in relation to her purchase of the subject 2010 Hyundai Tucson. 3. On March |, 2017, HMA made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (“First 998 Offer”) to Plaintiff wherein HMA offered Plaintiff $5,000.00. 4. On May 26, 2017 HMA made a second Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (“Second 998 Offer’) giving Plaintiffthe choice of: (1) a lump sum of $37,106.38 or (2) a statutory repurchase pursuant to Civ. Code, §§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2); 1794, subd. (b)), and wherein HMA offered Plaintiff the additional choice of (1) $5,000 in attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, or (2) attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs by motion. 5. The firstvisit for any complaint in this case was at 12,459 miles. The vehicle had 11 miles on itat the time of sale. Therefore, for purposes, of the Song-Beverly Act’s mileage offset calculation, the number of miles would be 12,448 miles, or the mileage at the first visit less the miles at the time of sale. 6. During Plaintiff's near decade of ownership of the vehicle, Plaintiff complained of a single issue with the subject vehicle’s back-up camera and presented the vehicle for four repair visits. 7. Plaintiff's counsel routinely failsto provide a breakdown of their damages in 25 litigation and took that same approach in the instant case. However, there was no dispute in this 26 case regarding the amounts of incidental and/or consequential damages. 27 8. On January 15, 2019, after reviewing all the submitted papers and hearing 2 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES argument in support and in opposition ofHMA’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff's implied warranty claim, the Court granted HMA’s motion for summary adjudication on statute of limitation grounds. This was the same claim that HMA challenged at the pleading stage. HMA billed less than 35 hours combined to do all of the following: draft the motion and supporting documents, including alldeclarations and exhibits, the separate statement of undisputed material fact and request forjudicial notice, as well as the reply insupport of the motion and prepare for and attend the hearing in-person in Placer County. HMA attended the hearing in-person largely because there was an ex-parte application that was also being filed to continue trial that same day. D. Trial in this matter commenced on July 1, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the jury reached itsverdict awarding Plaintiff $30,412.43 in total damages. The verdict was $6,693.95 less than HMA’s Second 998 Offer. Plaintiff had asked the jury during closing for a verdict in excess of $90,000.00. Plaintiff surrendered the vehicle as part of the jury verdict granting a repurchase of the subject vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act. 10. On September 17, 2019, HMA requested costs be awarded to itin the amount of $37,861.33 given that Plaintiff failed toobtain a judgment more favorable than HMA’s Second 998 Offer. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff served her notice of motion and motion to tax and/or strike Defendant’s costs seeking to strike some of Defendant’s claimed costs. Specifically, Plaintiff's reply stated “[p]rior to trial,Defendant Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai” or 20 Defendant’) had made an offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in the Zl amount of $37,106.38 which was declined by Plaintiff. As a result, Hyundai may recover those 22 costs accrued only from the time of the May 26, 2017 offer.” 11. Defendant submitted its opposition to Plaintiff's motion on October 28, 2019 24 noting in itsarguments that Plaintiff did not contest that HMA isowed at least between 25 $3,096.57 and $14,498.71 in costs and that Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment 26 than HMA’s 998 offer dated May 26, 2017. 27 12. Plaintiff filed a reply on November 1,2019. In that reply, Plaintiff noted that the 3 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES Court does have discretion to award Defendant expert witness fees, once again conceding that HMA’s Second 998 Offer was valid and Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable judgment than that offer. 13. The Parties appeared before the Court on November 22, 2019, the Honorable Michael W. Jones, judge presiding. After hearing argument, the Court awarded costs to Hyundai Motor America inthe amount of $31,254.46, including awarding Defendant allof the requested expert fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998. Accounting for the costs awarded to HMA, Plaintiffis actually owes HMA money since the jury verdict is$842.03 less than what HMA was awarded in costs. 14. HMA timely filed and served itsMotion to Strike or Tax the Costs of Plaintiff,set forth in Plaintiff's Memorandum of Costs, on December 3, 2019 via overnight mail and regular mail. The hearing on HMA’s motion isset for January 10, 2020. 15. Plaintiff's counsel Knight Law Group, LLP (“KLG”), and its predecessor entity O’Connor & Mikhov, along with their contractors such as the Altman Law Group (“ALG”) and Hackler, Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. (*“HDMN’) filehundreds of lemon law cases every year. From January 2016 to November 2017, KLG, along with itspredecessor entity, O’Connor & Mikhov, LLP, filed approximately 2,236 lawsuits, with zero known pre-litigation demands. Furthermore, Knight Law aggressively pursues itscases and routinely takes them to trialin an effort to drive up their attorney’s fees. This isin stark contrast to the vast majority of lemon law attorneys, many of whom resolve cases via pre-litigation demands. 16. Similar to the situation in thiscase, KLG, ALG and HDMN represented plaintiff Sara Castaneda in the matter of Sara Castaneda v. Hyundai Motor America, Kern County Court Case No. BCV-16-102254, filed September 23, 2016 and that was tried to verdict in September 2018. Plaintiff was offered two CCP 998 Offers, one only one month after HMA was served with the Complaint, and a second CCP 998 offer a few months after. Plaintiff, presumably on the advice of counsel, rejected both offers. Plaintiff proceeded to trial and while the jury ruled in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff failed to beat either of HMA’s CCP 998 Offers. HMA’s CCP 998 4 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES offers were both found to be valid and enforceable and HMA was awarded over $27,000.00 in costs and expenses. When accounting for HMA’s costs award, plaintiff received approximately half of what HMA had offered to plaintiffvia CCP 998 nearly two years earlier. Moreover, plaintiff's attorney’s fees and costs were cut offas of the first CCP 998 offer resulting in plaintiff and KLG, ALG and HDMN being awarded a total of $1,387.50 in attorney’s fees and $527.41 in costs and expenses for over two years of litigation. The CCP 998 offers upheld in Castaneda were almost identical to HMA’s May 26, 2017 CCP 998 Offer in this case. 17. Knight Law Group has accepted numerous CCP 998 Offers from HMA that are identical or nearly identical to the 998 offers made in this case. In particular, Plaintiffs counsel has accepted 998 Offers prepared and served by my office on behalf of HMA in the following cases: (1) Christine Goldman and David Jette v.HMA, Orange County Court, Case No. 34-2016- 00883673-CU-BC-CIC, (2) Robert Adams v.HMA, Los Angeles County Court, Case No. BC638330, and (3) Eulalia Alvernaz v. HMA, Santa Clara County Court, Case No. 16CV301838. True and correct copies of the as-accepted 998 offers in these cases are attached hereto as Exhibit G, Exhibit H and Exhibit Irespectively. 18. I have attended many depositions and hearings in cases against Plaintiff's counsel’s firm where itis clear that the plaintiffs are speaking to their lawyers for the firsttime. 19. Plaintiff's copy-paste First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) contained improper claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of implied warranty of 20 “fitness” that was further erroneously alleged as a single cause of action (because clearly no 21 attorney actually reviewed the complaint prior to filing to ensure it stated a cognizable claim). 22 Plaintiff's counsel alleges these claims in every case, regardless of whether they actually apply. Plaintiff's implied warranty claim was untimely on the face of the Complaint (and clearly had 24 not actually been reviewed by an attorney) and Plaintiff's allegations utterly failed to allege the 25 unique facts supporting a claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness (and instead was a 26 copy-paste of every other complaint). The motion was granted in part and the implied warranty 27 of merchantability claim was ultimately eliminated by HMA’s motion for summary adjudication. 5 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES HMA billed less than 5 hours to draft the motion and reply and to prepare for and attend the hearing. 20. KLG sends virtually the same meet and confer letterconcerning responses to Plaintiff's discovery in almost every case. KLG sent this form letter toHMA in this case on March 10, 2017 to “meet and confer” regarding HMA’s discovery responses. This letterwas accompanied by no less than eight other virtually identical letters, save for particular case identifying information. KLG continues to serve this form letterto this day. 21. KLG and their contractors filethe same copy-paste template fee motion inevery case. These motions are virtually always drafted by KLG contract attorneys Hadi Gerami and Christopher Thomas but the motions are the same regardless of which of the two drafts it. 22. The average hourly rate for the four firms HMA employs innearly all of itscases is $183/hour. This includes trialcounsel with 20 and 30 years of experienced practicing in this area. This average rate reflects the highly competitive nature of the legal market, and saturation of attorneys in the area. 23), I was trialcounsel inthis matter and attended every day of trial. KLG, ALG and HDMN all sent attorneys to the trial inPlacer County. Plaintiff's counsel, Kevin Jaacobson, attended the trialon behalf of HDMN, however Mr. Jacobson did littleto no work at trial. Mr. Jacobson’s primary duty was to operate the computer insupport of Plaintiff's case inchief. ALG and KLG’s representatives were responsible for actually trying the case. 24. HMA and my firm are aware of cases brought by KLG, HDMN and ALG in Placer County where each of these firms’ rates were reduced with the top rate being no more than $400 an hour. 25: Attached hereto as Exhibit A, is a spreadsheet setting forth HMA’s objections to and positions on Plaintiff's counsel KLG and ALG’s billing, addressing every billing entry made 25 and recommending a reasonable adjustment for each. Based on Exhibit A and supporting 26 arguments herein, Plaintiff should be awarded no more than $1,875 for attorney’s fees for work 27 by ALG and KLG. 6 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit B, is a spreadsheet setting forth HMA’s objections to and positions on Plaintiffs counsel HDMN’s billing,addressing every billing entry made and recommending a reasonable adjustment for each. Based on Exhibit B and supporting arguments herein, Plaintiff should be awarded no attorneys fees for work by HDMN. 27. A true and correct copy of HMA’s May 26, 2017 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 28. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Tax HMA’s Costs is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 29. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Reply in support of itsMotion to Strike or Tax HMA’s Costs isattached hereto as Exhibit E. 30. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Tax HMA’s Costs isattached hereto as Exhibit F. 31. A true and correct copy of the opinion in O'Green v.Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018 WL 2296604, 2d. Civil No. B282366) isattached hereto as Exhibit J. 32. A true and correct copy of the ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses inthe matter of Sara Castaneda v.HMA, Kern County Court Case No. BCV-16-102254 is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 33. A true and correct copy of the the Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Plaintiff's Opposition to HMA’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition is attached hereto as 20 Exhibit L. 21 34. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities for 22 Plaintiff's Opposition to HMA’s Motion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection is attached hereto as 23 Exhibit M. 24 35; A true and correct copy of the Ruling granting HMA sanctions in the amount of 25 $1,400.00 on itsMotion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection is attached hereto as Exhibit N. 26 36. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Association of Counse for Hackler, 27 Daghighian, Martino & Novak, P.C. is attached hereto as Exhibit O. 7 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 37. A true and correct copy of the Court’s Order granting HMA’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as tothe implied warranty claim in this case is attached hereto as Exhibit P, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing istrue and correct. Executed on December 19, 2019 at Lawndale, California. SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST 25 26 27 28 8 DECLARATION OF SOHEYL TAHSILDOOST IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’S OPPOSITION TO BOTH OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES EXHIBIT A >, a ae Claimed |Claimed plaintiff's | Suggested "MAS | « epost d Billing g Ent Entry NBEESES Reasonable Date Initials Bee Rate 5 uggested Hourly Actual Basisi Actual Fee For i Reduction Fee Reasonable Rate Hours $550 foran initial phone call and “evaluation”isunlikely especially where the evaluationisallegedly performed by theprimary Initial principle of thefirm,Steve communication Mikhov. In reality, thisintake withclientand was likely not handled byan evaluationof attorneyat all. Undated pre- client's claims SBM 1.00} $550.00 $550.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}litigation work isnot recoverable. Analyzevehicle was alredybilledtoevaluatethe documentation SBM 0.80} $550.00 $440.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]client's claims.Further,undated Communication Undated pre-litigation work is withClient SBM 0.50} $550.00 $275.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}not recoverable. Communication Likelyexaggerated butno withClient 10/27/16}ALM 0.50]$350.00 $175.00 $250 0.50 $125.00}redcutionof hours. A form complainttakes atmost DraftComplaint 10/27/16}ALM 0.50}$350.00 $175.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]10 minutes toprepare. Review and sign Signinga Complaintthat youdid Complaint 10/27/16}SBM 0.10]$550.00 $55.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}notdraftisnot abillable entry. Review file in Filereviewisgenerallynot anticipation of billable especially where the file drafting discovery was recentlyreviewedby requeststoDefense] 11/30/16|ALM 0.40}$350.00 $140.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]another attorney. DraftForm ROGs to DraftingForm Interrogatories Def 11/30/16]ALM 0.20}$350.00 $70.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|takesmaybe 5 minutes. Plaintiff's counselpropounds the same copy-paste discoveryin DraftSpecialROGs every cas.As such,ittookmaybe toDef and 10 minutes tochange thecase Declaration 11/30/16]ALM 0.80}$350.00 $280.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]information. Plaintiff's counselpropounds the same copy-paste discoveryin everycas. As such,it took maybe 10 minutes tochange thecase DraftRFA toDef 11/30/16]ALM 0.40]$350.00 $140.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]information. Plaintiff's counselpropounds the same copy-paste discoveryin everycas. As such,it took maybe 10 minutes tochange thecase DraftRFP toDef 11/30/16}ALM 0.60]$350.00 $210.00 $250 0.20 $50.00]information. Review and revise letter to Defense Form letterthataccompanies enclosingPtf's Plaintiff's discoveryineverycase discoveryrequests 11/30/16]ALM 0.10]$350.00 $35.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]but noreduction ofhours. Thisiscopy-paste Complaint. Moreover, thisFirst Amended Complaint would have bene unnecessary had Plaintiff's counseleven attempted to Draft Amended First adequately their allege claim Complaint 12/08/16]AH 0.30]$325.00 $97.50 $250 0.00 $0.00]intially. Review and revise letter to Defensere CMC; initial Thisisaform letterPlaintiff's Review file 01/19/17|CS 0.20]$375.00 $75.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|counselsends inevery case. _ a Thisisduplicatereview bytrial Reviewed file counselwho was not involvedin materials, thiscaseforanother year after pleadings,repair thisentryand wellafterHMA's ordersand Second CCP 998. Trial did not documents 01/20/17}BCA 0.70]$650.00 $455.00 $250 0.00 $0.00}commence untilJuly2019. Review Def's Stipulated ProtectiveOrderre Thisstipulatedprotective order Doc isonlythree pageslong butno Production 01/30/17}KSC 0.30] $375.00 $112.50 $250 0.30 $75.00|reductionin hours. Reviewed casefile, There was no suchMotion to documents, Compel hearing.Thisentry pleadings, and should beforJanuary 2018 when prepared for HMA's Motion toCompel the Motion toCompel depositionwas heard. Blatant Client's Deposition overreachingby Plaintiff's hearing. 01/31/17|JEE 0.80} $450.00 $360.00 $250 0.00 $0.00]counsel. Review and revise Case Management Statement; DraftNoticeofJury CMS isaform document that Fees 02/01/17|CS 0.60} $375.00 $225.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]staffcanprepare in5 minutes. Review Def'sCase Management Review ofa CMS takesmaybe Statement and two minutes especially ina Noticeof JuryFees 02/06/17|KSC 0.20] $375.00 $75.00 $250 0.10 $25.00]lemon law case. No legitimatefirmtakes1.2 hours "reviewing"form Review and analyze interrogatoryresponses.At Def'sResponses to most, it take 15 minutesto Form ROGs 02/10/17}ALM 1.20]$350.00 $420.00 $250 0.30 $75.00]}reviewtheseresponses. Taal aaa Again,no legitimatefirmthat actuallybills its clients takes hours reviewingdiscovery Review and analyze responses,especiallyinalemon Def'sResponses to law case.At most, it took 30 SpecialROGs 02/10/17|ALM 1.80]$350.00 $630.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]minutes to review. Review and analyze Def'sResponses to RFA 02/10/17|ALM 0.70] $350.00 $245.00 $250 0.50 $125.00|Same asabove. Review and analyze Def'sResponses to RFP 02/10/17}ALM 1.40}$350.00 $490.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]Same asabove. Thisproduction consistedlargely Review and analyze of repairrecordsPlaintiff was Def'sDocument alreadyin possessionof.That Production 02/10/17}ALM 0.40] $350.00 $140.00 $250 0.40 $100.00]saidno reductionof hours. Review Def'sNotice ofAddress Change 02/13/17}ALM 0.10} $350.00 $35.00 $250 0.10 $25.00|Thisisnot abillable entry. Review Court's tentativeruling in connectionwith upcoming CMC hearing 02/17/17)ALM 0.10}$350.00 $35.00 $250 0.50 $125.00]No reduction ofhours. a, Pa, Alltime associatedwiththe Review Deft's motion tostrikeisnot Motion toStrike recoverablesinceitwas First Amended completely avoidablehad Complaint; Plaintiff