Request Judicial Notice

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 3, 2020

L \OWNQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZOCV362938 Santa Clara - Civil Payam Shahian (SBM 228406) pshahian@slpattorney.com Jason Clark (SBN 252490) E-mail: jclark@slpattorney.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 Plaintiff JASON AARON FEICHTMANN V. Castaneda Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/28/2021 6:35 PM Reviewed By: V. Castaneda Case #20CV362938 Envelope: 7561963 SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JASON AARON FEICHTMANN, Plaintiff, vs. FCA US, LLC; SOUTH COUNTY CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case Nos.: 20CV36293 8 Case Initiated: February 3, 2020 Honorable Drew Takaichi Dept : 2 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES Date: TBD Time: TBD Reservation N0. TBD PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYs’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 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: PlaintiffJASON AARON FEICHTMANN (“Plaintiff”), through his attorneys 0f record, requests that the Court takejudicial notice 0fthe following documents in support 0fPlaintiff’ s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses. This request is being made pursuant to California Evidence Code sections 452 and 453. 1. A February 27, 2014 Minute Order granting plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs in the matter Khani v. FordMotor Company (LA. Super. Ct. Case No. BC466626), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration ofPayam 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 0f Vanwaus v. FCA US, LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct., Case No. BC591282), attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahjan. 3. A September 27, 2017 Minute Order concerning the Court’s Fee Order in the matter 0f Fuller v. FCA US, LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct, Case No. BC556964), attached as Exhibit 3 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 4. A February 27, 2017 Notice 0f Ruling and Tentative Ruling in the matter 0fKazaryan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Los Angeles Super. Ct., Case No. BC574416) attached as Exhibit 4 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 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 Shahjan. 6. A Notice ofRuling in the matter ofAhmedAl-Jiboury v. FCA (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No BC648057) attached as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 7. A Second Amended Judgment 0n Jury Verdict after Entry of Additur in the matter of Kadkhoda v. MBUSA (Los Angeles Superior Court Case N0 BC563069) attached as Exhibit 7 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 8. A Notice ofRuling on Plaintiffs motion for attorney’ s fees, costs and expenses in the matter ofRaul Galindo v. General Motors (LASC Case N0 BC693061) attached as Exhibit 8 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 9. An Order 0n attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter ofAbraham 1 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Forouzan v. BMW (United States Distn'ct Court for the Central District 0f California Case No. 2:17-cv- 03875-DMG-GJS), attached as Exhibit 9 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 10. An Order 0n attorney’ s fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter ofJoshuaHoleman v. FCA (United States Distn'ct Court for the Central District of California Case No. 2: 17-CV-08273-SVW- SK), attached as Exhibit 10 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 11. An Order 0n attorneys’ 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 ofPayam Shahian. 12. Order 0n attomeys’ fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter 0f Jerry Zomorodian v. BMW (United States Distn'ct Court for the Central Distn'ct 0f California Case N0. 2: 17-CV- 5061-DMG(PLAX)), attached as Exhibit 12 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 13. Order 0n attomeys’ fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter 0fZargarian v. BMW (United States Distn'ct Court for the Central Distn'ct of California Case N0. 2: 1 8-CV-04857-RSWL- PLA), attached as Exhibit 13 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahjan 14. September 16, 2016 order granting plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Expenses in the lemon law matter 0fSoderstrom v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (San Francisco Super. Ct. , Civil Case N0.CGC 1 5544475) attached as Exhibit 14 t0 the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 15. The Declaration 0fBryan Kemnitzer filed in support ofplaintiff s Motion for Attomey’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses in the Song Beverly matter of Soderstrom v Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC (San Francisco Super. CL, Civil Case No. CGC15544475) attached as Exhibit 15 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 16. February 14, 2019, order in Khomsone vBMWofNorth America, LLC (Alameda Super. Ct., Civil Case N0. RG17856686) attached as Exhibit 16 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 17. July 28, 2020, order granting plaintiff s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Expenses in the matter ofFlores v. FCA US, LLC (Sacramento Super. Ct., Case N0. 34-2016-00192221-CU-BC- GDS) attached as Exhibit 17 t0 the Declaration 0fPayam Shahian. 18. August 25, 2020, order in the matter ofJurosky vBMWofNorth America, LLC, (United States District Court for the Southern District 0f California Case N0. 19cv706 JM (BGS)) attached as 2 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 18 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 19. December 18, 2020 Order granting plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs & Expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Gonzalez v. MBUSA, (Los Angeles C0. Super. Ct. Civil Case No. SC 1 28379) ) attached as Exhibit 19 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 20. April 29, 2021 Minute Order granting plaintiff’ s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs & Expenses in the lemon law matter ofJose Medina v. KMA (Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct., Civil Case N0. 19STCV02985) attached as Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Payam Shahian. 21. May 10, 2021 Tentative Ruling granting plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs & Expenses in the lemon law matter ofMichelle Williams v. KMA (Los Angeles C0. Super. Ct., Civil Case No. BC72235 1) attached as Exhibit 21 to the Declaration of Payam Shahian. 22. July 23, 2021, Minute Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs & Expenses inthe lemon law matter 0f Scott Michael Feldman Gregory v. FCA US LLC, (County 0f Marin Case N0. CIV1901820) attached as Exhibit 22 to the Declaration 0f Payam Shahian. 23. August 10, 2021 Tentative Ruling granting plaintiff’ s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs & Expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Covarrubias v. Ford Motor Company, (ND. Cal. Case N0. I9-cv-0]832-FMC). attached as Exhibit 23 to the Declaration 0f Payam Shahian. 24. Order on attorneys’ fees inHolcomb v. BMWofN. Am, LLC, Case N0. 18CV475JM(BGS) 2020WL 759285 (SD. Cal. Feb. 14, 2020) attached as Exhibit 24 to the Declaration ofPayam Shahian. 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 obj ects t0 the parts 0f Shahian’s declaration that detail his background and experience with Song-Beverly cases, all 22 exhibits attached to Shahian’s declaration, and all of the cases cited t0 in support 0f each attorney’s hourly rate. See generally [Doc. #145] To 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 ofthe matters asserted in the judgment, but rather t0 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 0f comparable experience. The Court does not rely on exhibit 9, making Defendant’s evidentiary objections t0 that exhibit moot. The Court also OVERRULES Defendant’s obj ections t0 parts 0f 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. 3 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #145,] Shahian’s personal experience is relevant because it speaks t0 his knowledge 0f the prevailing market rate for attorneys of comparable experience. Forouzan v. BMW ofN. Am., LLC, N0. CV173875DMGGJSX, 2019 WL 856395, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019) (Emphasis added). [The]founder and most senior attorney of Strategic Legal Practices, Payam Shahian is “familiar with the experience and background of each attorney who has worked on this case at Strategic Legal Practices” and bases his determination that the hourly rates are reasonable 0n his “own experience and review ofrelevant court orders in the Los Angeles area.” Shahian Decl. 1T 20. Additionally, Shahian cites to several previous cases for each attorney in which hourly rates comparable to those requested in the instant Action were awarded to that specific attorney 0r t0 an attorney of similar experience in Los Angeles County.m Shahian Decl. 1N 7, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38, 37. Zargarian v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1227 (C.D. Cal. 2020). These documents, With the exception 0f number nine, are all matters of public record not subject t0 reasonable dispute, and are therefore the proper subject of judicial notice. T0 the extent Defendant obj ects t0 the request for judicial notice 0f previous court orders 0n 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 0n what courts have recognized as the prevailing market rate for attorneys of comparable experience. The Court declines to take judicial notice 0f the declaration 0fPayam Shahian filed in support 0f the plaintiff” s fee motion in the Abedi-Masihi matter (number nine) because a declaration is “subject to reasonable dispute.” See Lee, 250 F.3d at 688-89. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice with respect to all of the above-enumerated documents, but DENIES it as to number nine. Zamorodian v. BMW ofN. Am, LLC, N0. CV175061DMGPLAX, 2019 WL 6534513, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2019). Defendant obj ects to essentially the entirety of the Shahian Declaration despite the Court overruling Defendant’s almost identical obj ections t0 Mr. Shahian’s similar declaration in support 0f MAF 1. Compare [Doc. #170-3 (“Objections”) ] with [Doc. # 145] and MAF 1 Order. Once again, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s obj ections. T0 the extent Defendant obj ects t0 the admission 0f other court cases 0n hearsay grounds, those cases 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.” United States v. Boulware, 384 F. 3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). Defendant also raises many frivolous hearsay objections t0 passages of Mr. Shahian’s Declaration that do not involve out of court statements. See, e.g., Objections at Objection # 7 (objecting 0n hearsay grounds t0 Mr. Shahian’s recitation of Mr. Yu’s experience). Forouzan v. BMWofN. Am., LLC, No. CV173875DMGGJSX, 2019 WL 4667998, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019): 4 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES L \OWNQU‘I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffrequests that the Court take judicial notice 0fthe following: (1) a February 27, 2014 minute order granting Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs in the matter Khani V. Ford Motor Company; (2) a May 9, 2017 stipulation and signed order regarding judgment ofjury 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, 20 1 8 notice ofruling and tentative ruling in the matter 0f Kazarvan 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 A1- Jibougy V. FCA; (7) a second amended judgment on jury verdict after entry 0f additur in the matter of Kadkhoda V. MBUSA; (8) a notice 0f ruling on Plaintiff‘s motion for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the matter of 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 on attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Joshua Holeman V. FCA; (1 1) an order 0n attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in the lemon law matter 0f Catherine Shepard V. BMW; and (12) a copy of * 1224 order on attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in the lemon law matter of Jerry Zomorodian V. BMW. These documents are all matters 0fpublic record not subj ect to reasonable dispute, and are therefore the proper subject of judicial notice. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant objects on the basis that Plaintiff cites t0 n0 authority in support 0f his request, as well as that the contents of the documents are not subject t0 judicial notice. The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s obj ections, as Plaintiffmakes his request pursuant to Federal Rule 0f Evidence 201 and the documents at issue here are not subject to reasonable dispute. Zargarian v. BMWofN. Am, LLC, 442 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1223-24 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Dated: October 28, 2021 Respectfully submitted STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff By: O %k Jasong ark \ 5 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES