Court Opinion

ID: 9956707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 19:02:11.567854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:45.607630
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/2/24 Ceja v. Ford Motor Company CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

EMILIA CEJA,                                                   2d Civil No. B327920
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022-
     Plaintiff and Appellant,                                00568655-CU-BC-VTA)
                                                                 (Ventura County)
v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

     Defendant and Respondent.

      Emilia Ceja appeals from the trial court’s order awarding
her $13,225 in attorney fees after she settled a case with Ford
Motor Company. Ceja contends the court erred by failing to: (1)
use the lodestar method to calculate fees, (2) employ an upward
multiplier, and (3) award expert witness costs. We affirm.
         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
     Ceja purchased a Ford vehicle in July 2021. She sued the
company the following year, alleging various claims under the

         1 Ford’s motion to augment the record on appeal, filed
November 30, 2023, is granted.
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.)
and related statutes. She also sought attorney fees. (Civ. Code,
§ 1794, subd. (d).)
       In December 2022, Ford offered to repurchase Ceja’s
vehicle for $98,000. Ceja accepted the offer. She subsequently
moved for over $57,000 in attorney fees, costs, expenses, and a
“lodestar enhancement.” She submitted four declarations in
support of her motion.
       Ford opposed Ceja’s motion and objected to portions of the
four declarations. It argued that Ceja could not recover attorney
fees for claims that were stricken from her complaint, that the
fees Ceja sought were unreasonable, and that a multiplier was
not justified. It urged the trial court to award Ceja no more than
$13,225.
       The trial court heard Ceja’s motion at the location and time
noticed in her motion. She and her counsel failed to appear at
the hearing, however. The court overruled Ford’s evidentiary
objections, but agreed with the company that Ceja was entitled to
recover $13,225 in attorney fees and costs.
                             DISCUSSION
                         The lodestar method
       Ceja first contends the trial court erred by eschewing the
lodestar method to calculate her attorney fee award and instead
employing an across-the-board cut to her fee request. But the
page of the clerk’s transcript Ceja cites to purportedly support
this contention does not show that the court below did any such
thing; rather, it specifies the documents filed in the case, the
amount of Ceja’s fee request, and the fees the court awarded.
Without evidence to the contrary, we presume the court below
employed the correct method to calculate attorney fees. (Denham

                                 2
v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; see also Robertson v.
Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144
Cal.App.4th 785, 818-819 [lodestar method used to calculate
attorney fees under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act].) We
accordingly reject Ceja’s first contention. (Mueller v. County of
Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, fn. 5.)
                         Upward multiplier
       Next, without citing any authority, Ceja argues the trial
court erred because it did not consider her request for an upward
multiplier. We disregard conclusory arguments not supported by
legal analysis or authority. (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012)
211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-287.)
                        Expert witness costs
       Finally, Ceja contends the trial court erred by not awarding
expert witness fees. We disagree.
       Expert witness fees are recoverable under the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc.
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 138.) To recover these fees, the
plaintiff must show that they were “ ‘reasonably incurred.’ ”
(Ibid.) Ceja failed to make that showing here, citing a page of the
clerk’s transcript demonstrating only that the trial court did not
award expert witness fees. “Absent findings or any explanation
from the trial court, we presume the court found the cost [of
Ceja’s expert witnesses] was not reasonably incurred.” (Hanna v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 512.)

                                3
                          DISPOSITION
     The trial court’s February 15, 2023, order awarding Ceja
$13,225 in attorney fees is affirmed. Ford shall recover its costs
on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

                                 4
                  Benjamin F. Coats, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Andre L. Verdun; MGC Law and Maria Fabiola Gil Ceja for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Evans Fears Schuttert McNulty Mickus, Elizabeth Vanis
McNulty and Colin Patrick Cronin for Defendant and
Respondent.