Evans v. Y's Fries, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 08/23/11 ORDERING that dft's 26 Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED in its entirety. Pursuant to 07/25/11 36 Order to Show Cause, plf's counsel is ORDERED to PAY SANCTIONS in the amount of $150.00; said payment shall be bore by counsel alone and shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court w/i 20 days (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
C. JEFFERY EVANS,

12

NO. CIV. S-10-2297 FCD DAD
Plaintiff,

13
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

14
15
16

Y’S FRIES, INC.,
Defendant.

17
----oo0oo----

18
This matter is before the court on defendant Y’s Fries’

19
(“defendant”) motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule

20
of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 of the

21
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”).

Plaintiff

22
Jeffrey Evans (“plaintiff”) opposes the motion.

For the reasons

23
set forth below, defendant’s motion is DENIED.

24
BACKGROUND

25
This matter arises out of plaintiff’s allegations that

26
defendant violated the ADA, California Civil Code Section 54 et

27
seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

28
1

(Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s

1

Statement of Undisputed Facts [“UF”] [Docket #21-1], filed April

2

29, 2011, at ¶ 9.)

3

judgment of plaintiff’s claims, relying on a settlement agreement

4

between plaintiff and defendant’s primary shareholder, Marilyn

5

Yawnick (“Yawnick”), which stipulated that plaintiff would not

6

initiate any further litigation against Yawnick.

7

The court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding that

8

plaintiff failed to establish any ambiguity in the settlement

9

agreement or otherwise refute the plain language extinguishing

Defendant previously moved for summary

(UF at ¶ 8.)

10

any future claims against Yawnick.

11

CIV. S-10-2297 FCD DAD, slip op. at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2011).

12

On May 25, 2011, defendant filed the instant motion for

13

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing its motion for

14

summary judgment.

15
16

Evans v. Y’s Fries, Inc., No.

(Docket #26.)1
ANALYSIS

The ADA provides that a district court “in its discretion,

17

may allow the prevailing party, . . . reasonable attorney[s’]

18

fee[s], including litigation expenses, and costs.”

19

§ 12205.

20

attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant under

21

§ 12205 upon the finding that the “the plaintiff's action was

22

frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.”

42 U.S.C.

The Ninth Circuit has held that courts must only award

Summers v.

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The motion was continued for hearing due to plaintiff’s
failure to respond to the motion. On July 25, 2011, the court
ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why he should not be
sanctioned $150.00 for the failure to file a timely opposition or
statement of non-opposition to the motion (“OSC”). (Docket #36.)
Plaintiff’s counsel’s response to the OSC was due on August 5,
2011. While counsel filed an opposition to the motion on August
5, he did not separately respond to the OSC as directed by the
court. (Id.) As such, the court will impose a $150.00 sanction
against counsel as set forth below.
2

1

Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997)

2

(adopting the Supreme Court’s standard from Christiansburg

3

Garment Co. v. EEOC (Christiansburg), 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978)

4

for Title I ADA cases).

5

costs parallel, the Christiansburg standard applies to an award

6

of costs, other than attorneys’ fees, to a prevailing defendant

7

under the ADA.2

8

(9th Cir. 2001).

9

that “[a]n action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in

Also, because § 12205 makes fees and

Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182, 1190
Courts sitting in the Ninth Circuit have held

10

law or in fact, though it need not be brought in bad faith.”

11

Peters v. Winco Foods, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1037 (E.D.

12

Cal. 2004), aff'd, 151 Fed. App’x 549 (9th Cir. 2005); Martinez

13

v. Home Depot USA, Inc., CIVS 04-2272 RRB DAD, 2007 WL 2254432,

14

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2007); Harris v. Del Taco, Inc., SACV

15

04-730 DOC MLGX, 2005 WL 3388144, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2005).

16

Plaintiffs play an integral role in enforcement of the ADA

17

and other civil rights statutes through private litigation; and,

18

the award of attorneys’ fees provides an incentive to file such

19

suits.

20

of Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 418).

21

considerations which support the award of attorneys’ fees to a

22

prevailing plaintiff are not present in the case of a prevailing

Peters, 320 F. Supp. 2d at 1037 (applying the rationale
However the, “policy

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) allows a court
to award costs to a prevailing party unless a federal statute,
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order provides
otherwise. Thus, “[w]hen the federal statute forming the basis
for the action has an express provision governing costs . . .
that provision controls over the federal rules.” Rouse v. Law
Offices of Rory Clark, 603 F.3d 699, 702 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Brown, 246 F.3d at 1190). Here, the controlling provision is 42
U.S.C.A. § 12205.
3

1

defendant.”

2

contrary, awards to prevailing defendants could have a chilling

3

effect on the filing of ADA lawsuits by plaintiffs.

4

F. Supp. 2d at 1037.

5

Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 418-419.

To the

Peters, 320

Here, defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims were

6

frivolous because the settlement agreement “clearly” barred

7

plaintiff from bringing this suit.

8

Authorities in Support of Y’s Fries, Inc,’s Mot. for Att’ys Fees

9

and Costs [Docket 26-1], filed May 25, 2011, at 5:3-5.)

(Memo. of Points and

10

Defendant contends that plaintiff pursued this action with the

11

knowledge that it lacked foundation, even after receiving

12

defendant’s letters informing him of that fact.

13

D. Flesher [Docket #26-2], filed May 25, 2011, at ¶¶ 3-4.)

14

However, plaintiff responds that his complaint did not lack

15

foundation because it raised legitimate issues of law, which the

16

court ultimately decided, albeit in defendant’s favor.

17

Mot. for Att’ys Fees [Docket #37], filed Aug. 5, 2011, at 3:25.)

18

Importantly, plaintiff notes that “in filing this action, [he]

19

served the purpose that Congress had intended when it enacted the

20

[ADA]: continuing, knowing violations of long standing law must

21

not be ignored and must be redressed.”

22

Plaintiff is correct.

(Decl. of Jacob

(Opp’n to

(Id. at 3:9-10.)

His claims were not legally

23

frivolous.

24

plaintiff primarily raised a public policy argument--that it

25

would be unfair or unjust to preclude his current suit,

26

regardless of the settlement agreement’s plain language, because

27

this action involved a different property and separate alleged

28

violations of the ADA.

In opposing defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

Evans, No. CIV. S-10-2297 FCD DAD, slip
4

1

op. at *3.

2

Congress’ intent in enacting the ADA; specifically, that it is

3

the express intent of Congress that any known violation of the

4

ADA be redressed through the courts.

5

U.S. at 418-419; Peters, 320 F. Supp. 2d at 1037.

6

Plaintiff based his argument in law, relying on

See Christiansburg, 434

Moreover, as set forth in the court’s order on defendant’s

7

motion for summary judgment, there was evidence in the record of

8

plaintiff’s attempt to negotiate a settlement that barred only

9

claims against Yawnick with respect to the single restaurant

10

property involved in the prior action.

11

that plaintiff did not ultimately succeed in negotiating that

12

term, as the plain language of the parties’ final agreement

13

provided otherwise, there was evidence presented of plaintiff’s

14

interest in bringing other actions against Yawnick.

15

attempted to pursue such a suit by this complaint is not

16

unreasonable considering his clear intent from the prior lawsuit.

While the court found

That he

17

At bottom, plaintiff’s claims in this action raised a

18

genuine policy rationale for ruling against the plain wording of

19

the parties’ contract, in favor of plaintiff’s intentions, and in

20

support of Congress’ purpose in passing the ADA.

21

attorneys’ fees and costs to defendant here would run contrary to

22

the general policy articulated by the Supreme Court in

23

Christiansburg as the court cannot find that plaintiff’s

24

complaint in this matter was frivolous or pursued unreasonably or

25

without legal foundation.

An award of

434 U.S. at 418.

26

CONCLUSION

27

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES defendant’s

28

motion for attorneys’ fees in its entirety.
5

Per the court’s OSC

1

issued July 25, 2011 (Docket #36), plaintiff’s counsel is ordered

2

to pay sanctions in the amount of $150.00.

3

bore by counsel alone and shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court

4

within 20 days of the date of this order.

Said payment shall be

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
DATED: August 23, 2011

7
8

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6