Warren v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 263
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Warren bought a 2010 Kia Forte; after numerous repairs she sued under the Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (lemon law). A jury awarded $17,455.57 in damages.
- Warren sought $351,055.26 in lodestar attorney fees plus a 1.5 multiplier (total $526,582.89) and $40,151.11 in costs.
- Trial court awarded $115,848.24 in attorney fees by applying a 33% across‑the‑board negative multiplier to the lodestar, and taxed costs to $24,436.65 by disallowing $9,832.46 prejudgment interest and $5,882 for trial transcripts.
- The court explained the large percentage cut by characterizing the case as non‑complex, the aggregate billing as excessive, and expressing discomfort with the gap between a $17k verdict and a $500k fee request.
- On appeal the court rejected (1) tying fees to a proportion of damages as improper in Song‑Beverly cases, (2) the denial of the trial transcript cost, and (3) the prejudgment interest claim; it reversed the fee and cost orders and remanded to recompute fees and add the transcript expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by applying a 33% negative multiplier to the lodestar | Warren: multiplier was improper because fee must be based on actual time reasonably expended under §1794(d); proportionality to damages is inappropriate | Kia: aggregate lodestar was excessive, duplicative, and disproportionate to the case; cut was justified | Reversed: tying the multiplier (in part) to a proportion of the $17k damages was an abuse; court must re‑determine a reasonable fee using proper lodestar adjustment factors and explain percentage cuts when used |
| Whether prejudgment interest was recoverable on the jury award under Civ. Code §3287 | Warren: damages were ascertainable (e.g., from sales contract) and thus prejudgment interest is mandatory; alternatively, court should award interest under §3287(b) from filing | Kia: damages were not certain or calculable pretrial because they depended on disputed warranty findings and consequential damages | Affirmed: no prejudgment interest under §3287(a) because damages were not ‘‘certain or capable of being made certain’’; no abuse in denying discretionary §3287(b) interest |
| Whether trial transcript expense ($5,882) is recoverable under §1794(d) | Warren: transcript was reasonably incurred in prosecution and necessary for posttrial work/appeal; §1794(d) authorizes costs and expenses beyond CCP §1033.5 list | Kia: CCP §1033.5 excludes non‑court‑ordered transcripts unless expressly authorized; §1794(d) does not expressly authorize them | Reversed tax: transcript cost must be awarded under §1794(d) as a reasonably incurred expense |
| Whether requested hourly rates and time entries were reasonable | Warren: unrebutted declarations showed rates and hours were within market and justified by contingency and litigation demands | Kia: rates and aggregate hours excessive, duplicative across three firms; reduce fees substantially | Trial court properly anchored to lodestar and accepted rates; appellate court upheld that approach but remanded to reassess multiplier without using proportionality to damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Goglin v. BMW of N. Am., 4 Cal. App. 5th 462 (2016) (Song‑Beverly fee principles and appellate review of fee awards)
- Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 4th 140 (2006) (consumer statutes with mandatory fee‑shifting prohibit capping fees as a proportion of recovery)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122 (2001) (lodestar as starting point; case‑specific factors justify adjustments)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084 (2000) (reasonable hourly rate and lodestar methodology)
- Duale v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 148 Cal. App. 4th 718 (2007) (no prejudgment interest where damages depend on disputed factual determinations)
- Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 (1995) (§1794(d) ‘‘costs and expenses’’ can include items beyond CCP §1033.5 list)
- Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, 243 Cal. App. 4th 88 (2015) (heightened scrutiny when court makes across‑the‑board percentage cuts to a voluminous fee application)
- Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor Am., 31 Cal. App. 4th 99 (1994) (procedural demands and contingency risk as relevant lodestar factors)