If you read our earlier article on Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC v. Ramirez, you already know the California Court of Appeal delivered a major blow to inflated attorney fee demands in Immigration Consultant Act (ICA) cases.

Now the next chapter is here—and it's just as important.

On remand, the Los Angeles Superior Court has issued a new ruling dramatically reducing the fee award. What was once an $83,197.50 demand has now been cut down to $20,000.

This follow-up decision confirms what we've been saying all along:

👉 Courts are no longer rubber-stamping inflated fee requests in boilerplate ICA lawsuits.

👉 And more importantly, they are starting to look behind the curtain at how these cases are actually litigated.

What the Trial Court Was Ordered to Do

After reversing the original fee award, the California Court of Appeal sent the case back with very specific instructions.

The trial court had to:

• Justify the hourly rate
• Justify the multiplier
• Analyze whether the fees were reasonable
• Consider the actual public benefit
• Evaluate whether the case had a real factual basis

This was not optional. It was a roadmap.

The Result: Fees Cut by More Than 75%

On April 28, 2026, the trial court issued its tentative ruling.

📉 Original Fee Award: $83,197.50
📉 New Fee Award: $20,000

That's not a minor adjustment—that's a complete reset.

👉 The court reduced:

• The hourly rate from $750 → $500
• The hours from 73.9 → 40
• The multiplier from 1.5 → eliminated entirely

You can read the full tentative ruling below (attached), but here's what matters most.

1. The Multiplier Was Rejected—Completely

The plaintiff argued for a 1.5x multiplier based on “public interest” work and contingency risk.

The court wasn't buying it.

It found:

• No novelty
• No complexity
• No exceptional result
• No justification for bonus fees

Even more importantly, the court pointed out something that goes to the heart of these cases:

👉 The injunction simply required the defendant to follow the law—something he was already obligated to do.

That is not a premium result. That is baseline compliance.

2. The $750 Hourly Rate Collapsed Under Scrutiny

The court zeroed in on a key issue the appellate court flagged:

The attorney had previously claimed a $500 hourly rate in the same case—then suddenly jumped to $750 just months later.

No explanation. No supporting evidence. Just a declaration.

That wasn't enough.

The court set the rate at $500/hour, relying on its own knowledge of the Los Angeles legal market.

👉 Translation:
You don't get premium rates just because you say you deserve them.

3. The Court Took a Hard Look at the Billing—and Cut It

This is where the ruling gets especially important for anyone defending these cases.

The court didn't just adjust numbers—it scrutinized the work itself.

It found:

• 8 hours of “pre-filing investigation” → reduced to 1 hour
• 18.5 hours for discovery → reduced to 5 hours
• Motions to compel → reduced by half
• Fee motion work → cut significantly

Why?

Because the case was:

• Not complex
• Not fact-specific
• Not heavily litigated
• Based on standardized pleadings

👉 The court effectively recognized what defendants have been arguing:

These cases are often repetitive, template-driven litigation, not bespoke legal work.

4. “Public Benefit” Became the Key Limiting Factor

The plaintiff relied heavily on the idea that ICA cases serve the public.

The court agreed in theory—but rejected it in this case.

It found:

• The plaintiff was not personally harmed
• The lawsuit did not create any new protections
• The injunction did not change the defendant's conduct in any meaningful way
• The complaint was identical to others filed in similar cases

👉 In other words:

Just saying “public interest” doesn't justify a massive fee award.

You have to show actual impact.

5. No Attorney Fees for Losing the Appeal

The plaintiff also tried to recover attorney fees for the appeal.

The court denied that request outright.

Why?

Because the plaintiff lost the appeal.

This is a critical point:

👉 You don't get paid for losing.

Even in fee-shifting statutes, appellate fees generally follow success—not participation.

Why This Follow-Up Ruling Matters

This decision is arguably just as important as the appellate opinion.

Here's why:

✔ It Shows Trial Courts Are Taking the Appellate Court Seriously

The appellate court didn't just criticize the award—it changed how these cases will be evaluated going forward.

The trial court followed that direction and applied real scrutiny.

✔ It Confirms That Boilerplate Litigation Has Limits

The court implicitly recognized:

• Recycled complaints
• Standard discovery
• Minimal factual development

…do not justify premium billing.

That's a major shift.

✔ It Gives Defendants a Real Strategy

If you're facing one of these lawsuits, this case provides a clear blueprint:

• Challenge inflated hourly rates
• Attack excessive billing
• Highlight lack of factual investigation
• Emphasize limited public benefit
• Oppose multipliers aggressively

Read the Trial Court's Tentative Ruling

Below is the full tentative decision issued on remand.

This is required reading if you are:

• An immigration consultant
• A small business owner facing ICA claims
• An attorney defending against inflated fee motion

Read Also: good-news-for-immigration-consultants-court-slashes-inflated-attorney-fee-award

Final Takeaway

The Ramirez case started as a typical ICA lawsuit.

It turned into something much bigger.

First, the appellate court exposed the problems with inflated fee awards.

Now, the trial court has confirmed that those concerns are real—and acted on them.

👉 The message is clear:

Courts are no longer accepting inflated billing at face value.
They are asking hard questions.
And when the answers don't add up, the fees get cut.

How We Use This Case to Protect Clients

At the Law Office of Steve Lopez, this is exactly how we approach these cases:

• We dissect fee motions line by line
• We expose boilerplate litigation tactics
• We challenge unsupported hourly rates
• We push back on exaggerated claims of public benefit

And now, we have real authority showing courts are willing to agree.

Need Help Defending an ICA Case?

If you've received a demand letter or lawsuit under the Immigration Consultant Act, don't assume you have to settle.

You may have far more leverage than you think.

📞 Contact the Law Office of Steve Lopez for a confidential consultation.

We'll help you fight back, protect your business, and avoid being pressured into paying fees that don't reflect reality.