Juan Pablo Lopez v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 45

Order by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson denying 41 Motion for Attorney Fees. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JUAN PABLO LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

5

v.

6
7

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-03804-TEH
ORDER DENYING COUNTY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendants.

8
9

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant County of San Mateo and related

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties’ motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Docket No. 41. Having

12

carefully considered the parties’ written arguments, the Court finds this matter suitable for

13

resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the

14

Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion.

15
16

BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff Juan Pablo Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil rights

17
18

complaint against Defendants County of San Mateo, Jordan Boyd, Andy Armando, and

19

William Massey (collectively “County Defendants”), as well as Defendant County of Los

20

Angeles and Defendant California Department of Motor Vehicles.1 Docket No. 1.
County Defendants moved to dismiss on September 16, 2015 (Docket No. 12),

21
22

which Plaintiff failed to timely oppose. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause and

23

held a show cause hearing, during which it reset the briefing deadlines. Docket Nos. 24,

24

26. Pursuant to the new deadlines, Plaintiff timely filed his opposition, and County

25

Defendants timely replied. The Court granted County Defendants’ motion to dismiss with

26

prejudice on January 5, 2016. Docket No. 34. Judgment was entered on January 27, 2016.

27
1

28

The Court granted Defendants County of Los Angeles and California Department of
Motor Vehicles’ motions to dismiss as unopposed on December 1, 2015. Docket No. 31.

1

Docket No. 40. County Defendants filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees on February

2

10, 2016. Plaintiff timely filed his opposition, and County Defendants timely replied.

3
4
5

DISCUSSION
A court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party
in a civil rights action. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (“Section 1988”). Section 1988 “operates

7

asymmetrically,” by allowing a prevailing plaintiff to recover attorneys’ fees as a matter of

8

course, but only allowing a prevailing defendant to recover fees in “exceptional

9

circumstances where the court finds that the plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, unreasonable,

10

or groundless.” Braunstein v. Ariz. Dept. of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177, 1187 (9th Cir. 2012)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

(quoting Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court, 631 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2011))

12

(internal quotations omitted).

13

An action is frivolous when the arguments are wholly without merit or when the

14

litigation was pursued with an “improper purpose, such as to annoy or embarrass the

15

defendant.” Douglas v. Pfingston, 284 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir. 2002). A claim is not

16

frivolous merely because the “plaintiff did not ultimately prevail.” EEOC v. Bruno’s Rest.,

17

13 F.3d 285, 287 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.

18

412 421-22 (1978)). Likewise here, Plaintiff’s claims are not frivolous merely because

19

Plaintiff’s attorney may not have performed his best in representing Plaintiff in this action.

20

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint was based on an incorrect, but reasonable

21

belief that his constitutional rights were violated and that the County Defendants were not

22

immune from suit. Plaintiff’s complaint was not filed for any purpose other than

23

redressing his rights, which is the purpose Congress contemplated when it enacted 42

24

U.S.C. § 1983. While the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint lacked sufficient factual

25

allegations to withstand a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s institution and continuation of the

26

action does not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances” for which County

27

Defendants should recover fees. Accordingly, the Court finds that the action was not

28

frivolous, and County Defendants are not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
2

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, County Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is
DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 03/29/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

3