Ricksecker v. Ford Motor Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-04681
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Ricksecker v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Kim recommended granting in part and denying in part a fee request after judgment on a lemon-law claim.
Gregory P. Ricksecker and his attorneys were affected because the recommendation awarded part, but not all, of the requested fees and costs. Ford Motor Company was affected because the recommendation required payment of the recommended amount.
What happened
Gregory P. Ricksecker sued Ford Motor Company under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act over problems with his 2014 Ford Fusion. After Ricksecker accepted Ford’s offer of judgment, the court entered judgment, and Ricksecker requested $57,798.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
Ford agreed that Ricksecker was entitled to reasonable fees and costs but argued that the request should be reduced. The court rejected most of Ford’s challenges to the hours and rates billed, finding the work generally reasonable. It agreed that $900 should be deducted for work performed by a more senior attorney that could have been handled by a less senior attorney, and it declined to add the requested fee multiplier.
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim recommended granting in part and denying in part Ricksecker’s motion. The recommendation allowed $41,846.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,316.00 in costs, and stated that either party could object within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Ricksecker v. Ford Motor Company · No. 4:21-cv-04681
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Gregory P. Ricksecker brought a California “lemon law” action against Ford Motor Company under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act concerning problems with his 2014 Ford Fusion. The parties asked the court to enter judgment after Ricksecker accepted Ford’s offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The court entered judgment, and Ricksecker then moved for $57,798.78 in attorneys’ fees and costs for Strategic Legal Practice, APC.
Ford did not dispute that Ricksecker was the prevailing party and was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the Song-Beverly Act. The dispute concerned the amount that was reasonable.
Hours and rates
The court found that counsel’s rates and hours were generally reasonable. Counsel requested compensation for 90.4 hours spent on matters including the complaint, Ford’s answer, mediation, opposition to a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to remand, discovery, stipulations, and Ford’s two Rule 68 offers of judgment.
The court rejected Ford’s arguments that the hours should be reduced because the work was not performed, the fee motion was a template, the billing was inefficient or redundant, the case was overstaffed, or the time entries improperly used block billing. The court also found the requested hourly rates were within the range of prevailing rates for attorneys with comparable skill, qualifications, reputation, and experience in the Bay Area.
The court agreed with one reduction. Scott Johnson, whose rate was $550 per hour, billed eight hours for drafting discovery requests and a deposition notice. The court concluded that a less senior attorney could have performed those tasks and recommended compensating that work at Daniel Law’s 2021 rate of $425 per hour. This resulted in a recommended $900 deduction.
Multiplier and costs
Ricksecker requested a 1.35 multiplier to increase the lodestar. A lodestar is the number of reasonably expended hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Applying the factors used under California law, the court found that a multiplier was unwarranted because the case did not involve novel or difficult issues requiring extraordinary legal skill.
Ford filed a statement of non-opposition to the requested costs. The court therefore recommended awarding the full requested costs of $1,316.00.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim recommended granting in part and denying in part Ricksecker’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The recommendation was to deduct $900, deny the requested multiplier, and allow the remainder of the requested fees and costs, for a total of $41,846.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,316.00 in costs. The recommendation stated that any party could file objections with the district court within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation. The court also granted Ricksecker’s request for judicial notice.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.