Johnson v. Castro, et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/15/2016 GRANTING 57 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney fees and expenses; the Court awards $5,270.00. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

15
16

2:14-cv-02008-JAM-CKD

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES

J. ISSAC CASTRO; ELVIRA
CASTRO; JOSE RAMIREZ; and
CLAUDIA R. DELGADO-RAMIREZ,
Defendants.

17

Plaintiff Scott Johnson sued Defendants Jose Luis Ramirez,

18

Claudia R. Delgado-Ramirez, J. Issac Castro, and Elvira Castro,

19

alleging that Defendants’ restaurant in Stockton, California did

20

not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and

21

California law. 1

22

judgment, ECF No. 48, Plaintiff moves for attorneys’ fees and

23

litigation expenses.

24

opposition brief.

25

the Court will not consider Defendants’ brief.

ECF No. 1.

After prevailing on summary

ECF No. 57.

ECF No. 60.

Defendants filed an untimely

In deciding Plaintiff’s motion,

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for December 13, 2016.
1

1

I.

OPINION

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

A prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’

4

fees and expenses under the ADA and the Unruh Act.

42 U.S.C. §

5

12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a).

6

actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the

7

legal relationship between the parties by modifying the

8

defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the

9

parties.”

“[A] plaintiff ‘prevails’ when

Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1992).

To

10

determine a reasonable fee, courts calculate “the number of

11

hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

12

reasonable hourly rate.”

13

433 (1983).

14
15
16

B.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,

Analysis
1.

Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff submitted a billing summary itemizing the hours

17

expended by seven attorneys: Mark Potter, Russell Handy, Raymond

18

Ballister Jr., Phyl Grace, Dennis Price, Amanda Lockhart, and

19

Isabel Masanque.

20

Initially, Plaintiff requested $16,260.00 in fees and costs, but

21

has reduced it to $12,560.00.

22

Award, ECF No. 59, at 2.

23

Billing Summary, ECF No. 57-3, at 1.

Mot. at 1; Request for Modified

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be excessive and

24

unreasonable given that this is relatively simple and

25

straightforward ADA case involving an area of the law in which

26

Plaintiff’s attorneys have extensive experience.

27

Court finds it unreasonable and inefficient to staff seven

28

attorneys on a case that parallels hundreds of other cases these
2

First, the

1

attorneys have brought on Plaintiff’s behalf.

2

acknowledges that the “case presented no significant legal

3

issues of first impression” and “did not present specialized or

4

skillful challenges and was a fairly straight-forward

5

application of the law.”

6

does not explain why this case required several partners and

7

several associates.

8

inefficient; one partner and one associate should have sufficed.

9

Mot. at 13, 15.

Even counsel

Plaintiff’s counsel

To staff seven lawyers is cumulative and

Second, Plaintiff’s attorneys frequently use boilerplate

10

forms to litigate ADA cases.

11

reviewing another request by Plaintiff for attorneys’ fees in a

12

similar ADA case—the pleadings and briefing there parallel the

13

pleadings and briefing here.

14

Court has addressed this issue with Plaintiff’s attorneys.

15

4 months ago, this Court concluded that some of Potter’s,

16

Lockhart’s, and Masanque’s billing entries were unreasonable.

17

See Johnson v. Chan, No. 14-cv-1671, 2016 WL 4368104, at *2-3

18

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016).

19

In fact, this Court just completed

This is not the first time this
Just

The boilerplate nature of the filings in this case suggest

20

that it should have taken Potter little time to draft the

21

complaint, discovery requests, and attorneys’ fees motion.

22

the Court reduces Potter’s 7/2/2014 entry for drafting the

23

complaint from 0.7 to 0.3 hours, 11/24/2014 entry for drafting

24

discovery from 1.7 to 0.5 hours, and 10/13/2016 entry for

25

drafting the fee motion from 2.0 to 0.5 hours.

26

So,

Having made the above reductions, the Court finds that

27

Potter reasonably expended 12.1 hours and Price reasonably

28

expended 9.6 hours.

The Court declines to award fees for the
3

1

unreasonable hours Handy, Ballister, Grace, Lockhart, and

2

Masanque billed because their work was unnecessarily duplicative

3

and inefficient.

4

Davis v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1543 (9th

5

Cir. 1992) (“It simply is not reasonable for a lawyer to bill,

6

at her regular hourly rate, for tasks that a non-attorney

7

employed by her could perform at a much lower cost.”).

8
9

2.

See Chan, 2016 WL 4368104 at *1.

See also

Reasonable Hourly Rate

The Court must now multiply the reasonable hours expended

10

in this litigation by the reasonable hourly rate for each

11

attorney.

12

reasonable hourly rates by reviewing the “prevailing market

13

rates in the relevant community.”

14

886, 895 (1984).

15

satisfactory evidence...that the requested rates are in line

16

with...lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and

17

reputation.”

18

See Chan, 2016 WL 4368104 at *3.

Courts determine

See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.

The party seeking fees must “produce

See id. at 895 n.11.

Plaintiff seeks hourly rates of $350 for Potter and $200

19

for Price.

20

O’Connor’s expertise on attorneys’ fees, ECF No. 57-10, and the

21

2014 Real Rate Report.

22

Mot. at 4.

Plaintiff’s counsel relies on John

ECF No. 57-11.

The Court is not persuaded that the requested hourly rates

23

are reasonable.

First, O’Connor’s declaration offers no help

24

because O’Connor does not evaluate disability access cases;

25

instead, O’Connor’s analysis primarily pertains to labor

26

litigation.

27

addresses reductions to hourly fees for numerous corporate

28

practice areas, but not disability access.

See ECF No. 57-10.

Second, the Real Rate Report

4

See ECF No. 57-11,

1

at 29.

2

lawyers litigating disability access cases for non-corporate

3

clients.

4

The Report does not provide a helpful benchmark for

“District judges can...consider the fees awarded by other

5

judges in the same locality in similar cases.”

Moreno v. City of

6

Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008).

7

Court and other judges in the Eastern District of California have

8

found the hourly rates of $300 for Potter and $150 for junior

9

associates reasonable for disability access cases in the

Recently, this

10

Sacramento legal community.

11

Johnson v. Gross, No. 14-2242, 2016 WL 3448247, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

12

June 23, 2016); Johnson v. Lin, No. 13-cv-1484, 2016 WL 1267830,

13

at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016).

14
15

See Chan, 2016 WL 4368104 at *3;

Accordingly, the attorneys’ fees here are awarded as
follows:

16

Potter

12.1

x

$300

=

$3,630.00

17

Price

9.6

x

$150

=

$1,440.00

18

$5,070.00

19

The Court also grants Plaintiff’s request for $200 in costs.

20
21

II.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

22

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

23

awards $5,270.00.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2016

26
27
28
5

The Court