Zaharin v. FCA Corp.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-03298
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Zaharin v. FCA, Judge Tigar granted in part Zaharin’s fee motion, awarding $22,308.75 in fees and $406.09 in expenses.
Marie Mara Zaharin and her attorneys received the fee and expense award; FCA Corp. was the opposing party in the fee proceeding.
What happened
In Zaharin v. FCA Corp., Marie Mara Zaharin obtained judgment after alleging warranty-law violations involving her 2016 Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel, which required repeated repairs. She then asked the court to award attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Zaharin requested $26,665.19, including attorneys’ fees, a fee increase based on the case’s risks and delay, expenses, and $3,500 for work on the fee motion. FCA Corp. did not oppose the request.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion in part. The court awarded $16,525 in attorneys’ fees, a $5,783.75 fee increase, and $406.09 in expenses, but denied the additional $3,500 because FCA filed no opposition and the court held no hearing.
The detailed version
- Zaharin v. FCA Corp. · No. 4:22-cv-03298
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Marie Mara Zaharin purchased a 2016 Dodge Ram 2500 Diesel in July 2016. The vehicle experienced electrical, engine, fuel-system, and transmission problems between April 2017 and July 2020. Zaharin sued FCA Corp., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, among other claims.
On January 8, 2024, Zaharin applied for entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) in the amount of $182,502.60. The court entered judgment in her favor in that amount on January 29, 2024. Zaharin later moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. FCA did not oppose the motion, and the court decided it without a hearing.
Legal standard
The court applied California law to determine both whether Zaharin could recover fees and how to calculate them. California’s Song-Beverly Act allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees based on the time reasonably spent on the case.
The court began with the “lodestar,” which is the number of reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates. It could then increase that amount based on factors such as the difficulty of the case, the quality of the representation, the results obtained, the contingent risk of nonpayment, and delayed payment.
Ruling on attorneys’ fees and the multiplier
Zaharin requested $16,525 in attorneys’ fees for 34.3 hours of work by Strategic Legal Practices, APC. The court found the time records sufficiently specific, nonduplicative, and reasonable. It also approved hourly rates ranging from $350 to $595 and concluded that the $16,525 lodestar was reasonable.
Zaharin also requested a 1.35 multiplier enhancement of $5,783.75. The court approved it because counsel handled the case on a contingency basis, risking nonpayment, and had litigated the action since January 2021, creating a delay in payment. The total award for attorneys’ fees was therefore $22,308.75.
Ruling on costs and additional motion-related fees
Zaharin requested $856.44 in costs and expenses. The Clerk of Court had already taxed FCA with $450.35 in costs, including $402 for filing the complaint and $48.35 for service of process. Because Zaharin’s expense list included those same amounts, the court deducted them and awarded $406.09 in costs and expenses.
Zaharin separately requested $3,500 for reviewing an anticipated opposition, preparing a reply, and attending a hearing on the fee motion. The court denied that request because FCA filed no opposition and the court held no hearing.
Disposition
The court granted Zaharin’s motion in part and awarded $22,308.75 in attorneys’ fees and $406.09 in expenses.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.