O. Matthew Thomas v. San Francisco Travel Association

Filing 67

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 55 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

O. MATTHEW THOMAS,

Case No. 14-cv-03043-YGR

Plaintiff,
5
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

6
7

SAN FRANCISCO TRAVEL ASSOCIATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 55

Defendant.
8
9

This case arises out of a Section 1981 claim brought by plaintiff O. Matthew Thomas
against defendant San Francisco Travel Association based on allegations that defendant refused to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

enter into a contractual relationship with plaintiff because of race-based discrimination. The Court

12

granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s claims. (Dkt. No

13

51.) Before the Court now is defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 55.)

14

Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. No. 62) and a request for a continuance to find new counsel to

15

defend against the motion (Dkt. No. 65). Defendant replied. (Dkt. No. 64.) Having carefully

16

considered the papers submitted and the pleadings, and for the reasons set out more fully below,

17

the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.1

18

Under Section 1988, in an action or proceeding under Section 1981, a court, “in its

19

discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee

20

as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Because “Congress wanted to encourage individuals to

21

seek relief for violations of their civil rights, [Section] 1988 operates asymmetrically.” Braunstein

22

v. Az. Dep’t of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177, 1187 (9th Cir. 2012). District courts may award prevailing

23

defendants only in “exceptional circumstances” where the court “finds that the plaintiff’s claims

24

are ‘frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless,’” whereas prevailing plaintiffs “may receive

25

attorney’s fees as a matter of course.” Id.2

26
1

27
28

The Court adopts the Background section in its Order Denying Motion for Leave to
Amend; Granting Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 51.)
2

Frivolous in the Ninth Circuit, means that the “result is obvious” or the plaintiff’s

1

Moreover, courts must resist the “temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by

2

concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been

3

unreasonable or without foundation.” Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., No. 04-cv-2143, 2006 WL

4

1153758, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2006) (denying motion for fees despite granting summary

5

judgment in favor of defendants) (quoting Christianburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412,

6

421–22 (1978)). “The fact that plaintiff was unable to provide proper evidence to raise a triable

7

issue of fact, does not mean that [his] claims were unreasonable, frivolous, or without foundation.”

8

Id.

9

Defendant moves the Court to find that this was such an exceptional case such that
defendant should be awarded attorney’s fees. However, that defendant prevailed on summary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

judgment is not sufficient to show that this case is so “exceptional” as to merit an award of

12

attorney’s fees against plaintiff. Here, plaintiff was advised by his attorney, who later abandoned

13

his case, that he had a reasonable belief that plaintiff had been discriminated against because of his

14

race, and that that factor was, at least in part, a reason why defendant initially offered him

15

allegedly unfavorable terms and then subsequently refused to consummate the contract. The Court

16

is not prepared to find, given the circumstances of this case, that it falls into the “exceptional” case

17

contemplated by the statute for awarding prevailing defendants with attorney’s fees. Accordingly,

18

defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

arguments are “wholly without merit.” McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.
1981) (citation omitted). “The terms ‘frivolous,’ ‘unreasonable,’ and ‘without foundation’ as used
in this context do not have appreciably different meanings.” Alaska Right to Life v. Feldman, 504
F.3d 840, 852 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
2