Consumer Protection: Court awards attorneys’ fees, costs in Lemon Law suit

Where a woman sought to recover her attorneys’ fees and costs after her Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act claim was settled, her request was granted, although the claimed fees were reduced for unrelated claims and vague, unnecessary and duplicative time entries.

Background

After Serena Anderson filed suit under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, the parties agreed to a settlement in which they agreed that the reasonable amount of these fees and costs would be determined by the court.

Rates

Ford does not contest plaintiff’s counsels’ hourly rates. Blake Huddleston charges $250 per hour. Plaintiff’s counsel, James B. Feinman, clarified that his hourly rate is as follows: $500 per hour prior to July 18, 2024, and $550 per hour after July 18, 2024.

At the June 13, 2024, hearing, the court awarded Mr. Feinman $78,897 in attorneys’ fees. However, the court awarded this amount based on a rate of $550 per hour. Thus, the court will amend the amount of attorneys’ fees in which plaintiff’s counsel is entitled based on these corrected rates. Additionally, the court finds that plaintiff’s counsels’ hourly rates are reasonable in the Richmond market.

Time

Plaintiff seeks $127,392.50 in attorneys’ fees and $798.08 in costs under the fee-shifting provision of Virginia’s Lemon Law. Ford agrees that plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to attorneys’ fees, but seeks to reduce the fees that: (1) are unrelated to the prosecution of her Lemon Law claim; (2) were incurred for claims against other defendants; (3) were related to Ford’s motion to strike; (4) are vague and lack adequate documentation and (5) relate to the litigation of attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff only prevailed on her Lemon Law claim. Thus, her recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs is limited to this claim, and the court will exclude all unrelated time entries. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled to attorneys’ fees on all claims merely because they are intertwined or related. Rather, counsel is only entitled to fees on successful claims which are vested with an independent statutory or contractual right to recovery.

Ford urges the court to implement a 30 percent reduction of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees because it is unclear which time entries were devoted to the non-meritorious claims. The court declines to impose this blanket reduction. However, the court limits plaintiff’s recovery to only her Lemon Law claim, which results in the following reduction: 20.45 hours at the rate of $500 for Mr. Feinman, 38.25 hours at the rate of $550 for Mr. Feinman and 0.85 hours at the rate of $250 for Mr. Huddleston.

There is one time entry that merely states: “citizenship documents.” The court is unable to ascertain whether the associated fee is reasonable, and the requested fees will be reduced as follows: 1.15 hours at the rate of $500 for Mr. Feinman, and 0.55 hours at the rate of $250 for Mr. Huddleston.

Additionally, after the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, plaintiff filed a non-compliant amended complaint. The court granted Ford’s motion to strike and required plaintiff to file a corrected amended complaint. It is not appropriate for plaintiff to recover fees related to plaintiff’s own errors and failure to follow the court’s order. The court reduces the requested fees by 13.4 hours at the rate of $500 for Mr. Feinman.

The court will also reduce 3.0 hours at the rate of $500 for Mr. Feinman, and 1.4 hours at the rate of $550 for Mr. Feinman to account for unnecessary time entries. And the court excludes 6.75 hours at the rate of $550 for Mr. Feinman for duplicative billing.

Costs and interest and more fees

At the June 13, 2024, hearing, plaintiff’s counsel additionally requested $481.40 to cover his hotel stay before the hearing. The court denies this request. Counsel chose to stay in a hotel the night before the 10:00 a.m. hearing, even though his office is approximately a two-hour drive away.

Finally, for the first time, Mr. Feinman requested prejudgment interest at the hearing. Plaintiff failed to request prejudgment interest in either her original complaint or her amended complaint. Therefore, plaintiff cannot obtain prejudgment interest.

In plaintiff’s supplemental brief, she requested that her counsel receive additional compensation for “4.65 hours in researching, drafting, and revising this supplemental briefing.” However, the supplemental briefing was limited only to prejudgment interest and plaintiff’s counsel did not include appropriate documentation of his billing. Thus, the court will not award additional fees.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees granted in part, denied in part.

Anderson v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-758, Aug. 6, 2024. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 024-3-396. 11 pp.