Request Judicial Notice

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.August 30, 2018

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18CV3341 39 Santa Clara - Civil Payam Shahian (SBN 228406) pshahian@slpattorney.com Anh Nguyen (SBN 28 1 925) anguyen@slpattomey.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES,APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (3 10) 929-4900 Facsimile: (3 10) 943-3838 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BELINDA JONES andDESMOND JONES R. Bur Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/1 9/2020 7:23 PM Reviewed By: R. Burciaga Case #1 8CV3341 39 Envelope: 5333699 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FORTHE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BELINDA JONES andDESMOND JONES, Plaintiffs, vs. FCA US, LLC; NORMANDIN’S, a California Corporation d/b/aNORMANDIN CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. Defendants. Case N0.: 18CV334139 Hon. Socrates Manoukian Dept. 20 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES TBD Hearing Date: W020- Time: 9:00 am. Dept. 20 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES :iaga 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Plaintiffs BELINDA JONES andDESMOND JONES (“P1aintiff’), through their attorneys 0f record, requests that the Court take judicial notice ofthe following documents in support ofPlaintiff s Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses. Said request is being made pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. Plaintiff submits that the fact that these rates have been approved are facts that are not subject t0 reasonable dispute, are capable ofimmediate and accurate determination by resort to sources ofreasonably indisputable accuracy, and are thus the proper subject ofjudicial notice under Evidence Code sections 452(d) & (h) and 453. In the Song-Beverly context, the California Court 0f Appeal has found that counsel may present evidence/declarations regarding hourly rates that others courts have previously awarded them for comparable cases to demonstrate the prevailing rate in the community for comparable legal services. Goglin v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 462, 473 (2016) (in Song-Beverly case, court accepted declarations demonstrating hourly rates that “various state and federal courts had previously awarded [plaintiff’s attorney] attorney fees for comparable work at comparable hourly rates” as evidence of reasonableness of rates); See also Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy, 215 Ca1.App.4th 972, 1009 (2013) (“Affidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence 0fthe prevailing market rate.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court should take judicial notice of these state and federal court orders because evidence ofthe basic hourly rates sought by and awarded to the same law firm in other litigations, as well as expen'ence of counsel, are “obviously relevant” to the attorney fees determination. Margolin v. Regional Planning Com, 134 Cal. App. 3d 999, 1005-06 (1982). 1. A February 27, 2014 Minute Order granting plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs in the matter Kham' v. FordMotor Company (LA. Super. Ct. Case No. BC466626), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 2. A May 9, 2017 Stipulation and signed Order regarding judgment ofjury verdict with a 2 times civil penalty and attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the matter of Vanwaus v. FCA US, LLC (Los 1 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Angeles Super. CL, Case N0. BC591282), attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 3. A September 27, 2017 Minute Order concerning the Court’s Fee Order in the matter of Fuller v. FCA US, LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct., Case No. BC556964), attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahjan. 4. A February 27, 2018 Notice of Ruling and Tentative Ruling in the matter ofKazaryan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct., Case No. BC574416) attached as Exhibit 4 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahjan. 5. A Notice ofRuling in the matter of Geredes v. Chrysler Group LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct, Case No. BC52364) attached as Exhibit 5 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 6. A Notice of Ruling in the matter of Ahmed Al-Jiboury v. FCA (Los Angeles Superior Court Case N0 BC648057) attached as Exhibit 6 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 7. A Second Amended Judgment on Jury Verdict after Entry 0f Additur in the matter of Kadkhoda v. MBUSA (Los Angeles Superior Court Case N0 BC563069) attached as Exhibit 7 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 8. A Notice 0f Ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the matter 0f Raul Galindo v. General Motors (LASC Case No BC693061) attached as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 9. An Order 0n attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter ofAbraham Forouzan v. BMW (United States District Court for the Central Distn'ct of California Case No. 2:17-CV- O3875-DMG-GJS), attached as Exhibit 9 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 10. An Order on attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter of Joshua Holeman v. FCA (United States District Court for the Central District of California Case N0. 2:17-CV- 08273-SVW-SK), attached as Exhibit 10 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 11. An Order on attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Catherine Shepard v. BMW (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC622506), attached as Exhibit 11 to the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 12. Order on attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter of Jerry Zomorodian v. BMW (United States District Court for the Central Distn'ct of California Case N0. 2: 17-CV- 2 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5061-DMG(PLAX)), attached as Exhibit 12 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 13. Order 0n attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter 0fZargarz’an v. BMW (United States District Court for the Central Distn'ct of California Case No. 2:18-CV-04857-RSWL- PLA), attached as Exhibit 13 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian 14. Notice 0f Entry of Order concerning this Court’s Fee Order in the matter ofHall v. FCA (San Diego Supen'or Court Case No 37-2016-00006383) attached as Exhibit 14 t0 the Declaration of Payam Shahian. 15. Order 0n attorney’s fees in Holcomb v. BMW 0f N. Am., LLC, Case No. 18CV475JM(BGS) 2020 WL 759285 (SD. Cal. Feb. 14, 2020) attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration ofAnh Nguyen. Both state and federal court cases have taken Judicial Notice ofthese state and federal court orders in connection with fee motions under the Song-Beverly Act: Defendant objects to the parts 0f Shahian's declaration that detail his background and experience With Song-Beverly cases, all 22 exhibits attached t0 Shahian’s declaration, and all 0f the cases cited t0 in support of each attorney's hourly rate. See generally [D0c. #145] T0 the extent Defendant objects t0 previous court orders 0n hearsay grounds, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections. The prior court orders and judgments referred to in Shahian's declaration are not offered “for the truth 0f the matters asserted in the judgment, but rather to establish the judgment’s legal effect” Which is a “nonhearsay purpose.” U.S. Boulware, 384 F. 3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). Previous court orders are also relevant because they shed light 0n what courts have recognized as the prevailing market rate for attorneys of comparable experience. The Court does not rely on exhibit 9, making Defendant's evidentiary objections to that exhibit moot. The Court also OVERRULES Defendant's objections to parts of Shahian's declaration regarding his personal experience on relevance grounds. Just because Shahian is not submitting time for this matter does not make his experience irrelevant. See [Doc. #145.] Shahian's personal experience is relevant because it speaks t0 his knowledge 0f the prevailing market rate for attorneys 0f comparable experience. Forouzan v. BMWofN. Am., LLC, N0. CV173875DMGGJSX, 2019 WL 856395, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019) (Emphasis added). [The]founder and most senior attorney 0f Strategic Legal Practices, Payam Shahian is “familiar with the experience and background 0f each attorney Who 3 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 has worked 0n this case at Strategic Legal Practices” and bases his determination that the hourly rates are reasonable 0n his “own experience and review of relevant court orders in the Los Angeles area.” Shahian Decl. 1] 20. Additionally, Shahian cites t0 several previous cases for each attorney in Which hourly rates comparable to those requested in the instant Action were awarded to that specific attorney or to an attorney of similar experience in Los Angeles County.E Shahian Decl. 1m 7, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 37. Zargarian v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1227 (CD. Cal. 2020). These documents, With the exception of number nine, are all matters of public record not subject t0 reasonable dispute, and are therefore the proper subject 0f judicial notice. T0 the extent Defendant objects to the request for judicial notice 0f previous court orders on relevance grounds, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections. The prior court orders and judgments referenced in Shahian's declaration are relevant because they shed light on What courts have recognized as the prevailing market rate for attorneys of comparable experience. The Court declines to take judicial notice 0f the declaration 0f Payam Shahian filed in support of the plaintiff's fee motion in the Abedi-Masihi matter (number nine) because adeclarationis “subject t0 reasonable dispute.” See Lee, 250 F.3d at 688-89. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice With respect to all of the above-enumerated documents, but DENIES it as to number nine. Zomorodian v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, N0. CV175061DMGPLAX, 2019 WL 6534513, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2019). Defendant objects to essentially the entirety of the Shahian Declaration despite the Court overruling Defendant's almost identical objections t0 Mr. Shahian's similar declaration in support of MAF 1. Compare [Doc. #170-3 (“Objections”) ] with [Doc. # 145] and MAF 1 Order. Once again, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections. T0 the extent Defendant objects t0 the admission 0f other court cases 0n hearsay grounds, those cases are not offered “for the truth of the matters asserted in the judgment, but rather to establish the judgment's legal effect” Which is a “nonhearsay purpose.” United States v. Boulware, 384 F. 3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendant also raises many frivolous hearsay objections to passages 0f Mr. Shahian’s Declaration that do not involve out 0f court statements. See, e.g., Objections at Objection # 7 (objecting 0n hearsay grounds to Mr. Shahian's recitation 0f Mr. Yu's experience). Forouzan v. BMW ofN. Am., LLC, N0. CV173875DMGGJSX, 2019 WL 4667998, at *2 (CD. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019): Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice 0f the following: (1) a February 27, 2014 minute order granting Plaintiffs motion for fees and costs in 4 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the matter Khani V. Ford Motor Company; (2) a May 9, 2017 stipulation and signed order regarding judgment 0f jury verdict With a two times civil penalty and attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the matter Vanwaus V. FCA US, LLC; (3) a September 27, 2017 minute order concerning the court's fee order in the matter of Fuller V. FCA US, LLC; (4) a February 27, 2018 notice of ruling and tentative ruling in the matter ofKazarvan V. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; (5) a notice of ruling in the matter of Geredes V. Chrysler Group LLC; (6) a notice of ruling in the matter 0fAhmed Al-Jiboury V. FCA; (7) a second amended judgment 0n jury verdict after entry of additur in the matter 0fKadkhoda V. MBUSA; (8) a notice 0f ruling on Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the matter 0f Raul Galindo V. General Motors; (9) an order 0n attorney's fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter ofAbraham Forouzan V. BMW; (10) an order 0n attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter of Joshua Holeman V. FCA; (1 1) an order on attorney's fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Catherine Shepard V. BMW; and (12) a copy of *1224 order 0n attorney's fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter of Jerry Zomorodian V. BMW. These documents are all matters of public record not subject t0 reasonable dispute, and are therefore the proper subject of judicial notice. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant objects 0n the basis that Plaintiff cites to no authority in support 0f his request, as well as that the contents of the documents are not subject to judicial notice. The Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections, as Plaintiff makes his request pursuant to Federal Rule 0f Evidence 201 and the documents at issue here are not subj ect t0 reasonable dispute. Zargarian v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1223-24 (CD. Cal. 2020): Dated: November 19, 2020 Respectfillly submitted, STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES,APC ByzmW Anh Nguyen Attorneys for Plaintiffs 5 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 4; \OOOQQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Strategic Legal Practices, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430, Los Angeles, California 90067. On November 19, 2020, I caused to be served the document(s) described as: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES on the interested parties in this action by sending [ ] the original [or] [V] a true copy thereof [V] to interested parties as follows [or] [ ] as stated on the attached service list: Spencer P. Hugret, Esq. Bradley Tanner, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 shugret@grsm.com btanner rsm.com [ ] BY MAIL (ENCLOSED IN A SEALED ENVELOPE): I deposited the envelope(s) for mailing in the ordinary course 0f business at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, sealed envelopes are deposited with the U.S. Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness with postage thereon fullv Drenaid at Los Angeles. California. [V] BY E-MAIL: Ihereby certify that this document was served from Los Angeles, California, by e-mail delivery, as agreed between the parties, on the parties listed herein at their most recent known e-mail address 0r e-mail of record in this action. [ ] BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I am “readily familiar” with this firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery. Under that practice, overnight packages are enclosed in a sealed envelope with a packing slip attached thereto fully prepaid. The packages are picked up by the carrier at our offices or delivered bV our office to a designated collection site. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this November 19, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. 96M“ )qu Lauren Wagemanv PROOF 0F SERVICE