Johnson v. Lim et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/15/2016 GRANTING 36 Motion for Attorney' Fees and Expenses; AWARDING the plaintiff $8,164.47. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

2:15-cv-00152-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

KEANG SIM LIM and LY TECH
NGOV,

15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Scott Johnson sued Defendants Keang Sim Lim and Ly

17
18

Tech Ngov, alleging that Defendants’ restaurant in Fairfield,

19

California did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities

20

Act (“ADA”) and California law. 1

21

summary judgment, ECF No. 33, Plaintiff moves for attorneys’ fees

22

and litigation expenses.

23

Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition. 2

ECF No. 1.

ECF No. 36.

After prevailing on

Defendants objected to
ECF No. 39.

24
1

25
26
27
28

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.
2
Defendants did not file an opposition brief. Instead, they
explained that they “mis-calendared the due date” for filing an
opposition brief, and sought leave to file one. ECF No. 39, at
1. This Court denied Defendants’ request. ECF No. 40.
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

B.

15
16

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

Analysis
1.

Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff submitted a billing summary itemizing the hours

17

billed by five attorneys: Mark Potter, Phyl Grace, Dennis Price,

18

Amanda Lockhart, and Isabel Masanque.

19

No. 36-3, at 1.

20

fees and costs, but has reduced it to $13,784.47.

21

Request for Modified Award, ECF No. 38, at 2.

22

Billing Summary, ECF

Initially, Plaintiff requested $16,234.47 in
Mot. at 1;

The Court finds Plaintiff’s attorneys fee request to be

23

excessive.

Plaintiff seeks nearly $14,000 for services billed

24

in this relatively non-complex ADA case—an area of the law in

25

which Plaintiff’s attorneys have extensive experience.

26

the Court finds it unreasonable and inefficient to staff five

27

attorneys on a case that parallels hundreds of other cases these

28

attorneys have brought on Plaintiff’s behalf.
2

First,

Even counsel

1

acknowledges that the “case presented no significant legal

2

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

3

skillful challenges and was a fairly straight-forward

4

application of the law.”

5

does not explain why this case required two partners and three

6

associates.

7

inefficient; one partner and one associate should have sufficed.

8
9

Mot. at 11, 13.

Plaintiff’s counsel

To staff five lawyers is cumulative and

Second, Plaintiff’s attorneys frequently use boilerplate
forms to litigate ADA cases.

In fact, the Court is also

10

reviewing another request by this law firm for attorneys’ fees

11

in a similar ADA case—the pleadings and briefing there parallel

12

the pleadings and briefing here.

13

this Court has addressed this issue with Plaintiff’s attorneys.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

This is not the first time

The boilerplate nature of the filings in this case

19

suggest that it should have taken Potter little time to draft

20

the complaint, discovery requests, and attorneys’ fees motion.

21

The Court therefore reduces Potter’s 1/18/2015 entry for

22

drafting the complaint from 0.6 to 0.3 hours, 4/8/2015 entry for

23

drafting discovery from 1.4 to 0.5 hours, and 10/17/2016 entry

24

for drafting the fee motion from 1.2 to 0.5 hours.

25

Having made the above reductions, the Court finds that

26

Potter reasonably expended 6.8 hours and Lockhart reasonably

27

expended 14.3 hours.

28

hours Grace, Price, and Masanque billed because their work was

The Court declines to award fees for the

3

1

unnecessarily duplicative and inefficient.

2

4368104 at *1.

3

976 F.2d 1536, 1543 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It simply is not

4

reasonable for a lawyer to bill, at her regular hourly rate, for

5

tasks that a non-attorney employed by her could perform at a

6

much lower cost.”).

7

2.

8
9

See Chan, 2016 WL

See also Davis v. City & Cty. of San Francisco,

Reasonable Hourly Rate

The Court must now multiply the reasonable hours expended in
this litigation by the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney.

10

See Chan, 2016 WL 4368104 at *3.

11

hourly rates by reviewing the “prevailing market rates in the

12

relevant community.”

13

(1984)).

14

evidence...that the requested rates are in line with...lawyers of

15

reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.”

16

at 895 n.11.

17

Courts determine reasonable

See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895

The party seeking fees must “produce satisfactory

See id.

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

18

Lockhart.

Mot. at 3.

Plaintiff’s counsel relies on John

19

O’Connor’s expertise on attorneys’ hourly billing rates, ECF No.

20

36-4, and the 2014 Real Rate Report.

21

is not persuaded that the requested hourly rates are reasonable.

22

First, O’Connor’s declaration offers no help because O’Connor

23

does not evaluate disability access cases; instead, O’Connor’s

24

analysis primarily pertains to labor litigation.

25

4.

26

fees for numerous corporate practice areas, but not disability

27

access.

28

helpful benchmark for lawyers litigating disability access cases

ECF No. 36-5.

This Court

See ECF No. 36-

Second, the Real Rate Report addresses reductions to hourly

ECF No. 36-5, at 29.

The Report does not provide a

4

1
2

for non-corporate clients.
“District judges can...consider the fees awarded by other

3

judges in the same locality in similar cases.”

4

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

5

Court and other judges in the Eastern District of California have

6

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

7

associates reasonable for disability access cases in the

8

Sacramento legal community.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

Moreno v. City of
Recently, this

See Chan, 2016 WL 4368104 at *3;

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

14
15

Potter

6.8

x

$300

=

$2,040.00

16

Lockhart

14.3

x

$150

=

$2,145.00

17
18
19

$4,185.00
Lastly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to recover
$3,979.47 in litigation expenses.

20
II.

21
22

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

23

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

24

awards $8,164.47.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2016

27
28
5

The Court