Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2022

Cox v. FCA US LLC

Judge
William Orrick
Docket
3:20-cv-03808
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cox v. FCA US LLC, Judge Orrick granted Cox’s fee motion and awarded $49,801.66 after the parties settled his warranty case.

Who this affects

David Cox received the fee and cost award; FCA US LLC was required to pay the amounts awarded.

What happened

In Cox v. FCA US LLC, David Cox sued under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging that FCA US LLC sold him a vehicle with warranty defects. The parties settled the case for $19,000 after discovery and two mediations.

Cox requested $47,155 in attorney’s fees and costs. FCA argued that the attorneys’ hourly rates and some billed hours were unreasonable, but the court rejected those objections except for one hour billed for a hearing that had been canceled.

Judge Orrick granted the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. He awarded Cox $46,630 in fees and $3,171.66 in costs, for a total of $49,801.66.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cox v. FCA US LLC · No. 3:20-cv-03808
Judge
William Orrick
Date
Feb. 2, 2022

Background

David Cox brought a Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act case against FCA US LLC, alleging that FCA knowingly sold him a vehicle with defects that violated its warranties. Cox filed the case in California state court, and FCA removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in June 2020. The court denied Cox’s motion to remand the case to state court.

The parties conducted discovery and, after two mediations and shortly before the pretrial conference, settled for $19,000. The settlement allowed Cox to seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Act. The parties agreed that Cox was entitled to fees and costs but disagreed about the amount.

Fee Calculation

The court applied California law to determine the fee award. It used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by reasonable hourly rates and then considers whether an adjustment is appropriate.

Cox requested $47,155 in attorney’s fees. Four attorneys worked on the case at hourly rates of $525, $450, and $250. The court found those rates reasonable based on prevailing rates in the district and the attorneys’ experience. The attorneys billed a total of 89.5 hours for work including pre-suit matters, pleadings, the motion to remand, discovery, mediation, settlement, and the fee motion.

The court found no basis to reduce the billed hours for duplication, unnecessary work, or padding. It rejected FCA’s specific objections to 12.5 hours spent on the remand motion and five hours spent on the fee motion. The court noted that FCA did not provide evidence showing that particular billing entries were inflated or unreasonable.

The court did deduct one hour billed by David Barry for attending the fee-motion hearing because the court had vacated the hearing before it occurred. That deduction reduced the lodestar by $525, from the requested $47,155 to $46,630. The court did not make any further downward adjustment, noting that the case lasted nearly two years, involved discovery and mediation, settled near trial, and was handled on a contingency basis.

Ruling

Judge Orrick granted the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Cox was awarded $46,630 in attorney’s fees and $3,171.66 in costs, for a total award of $49,801.66.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.