Johnson v. Castagnola

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Susan van Keulen granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Attorney's Fees. (svklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD JOHNSON,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10

DANIEL CASTAGNOLA,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-00583-SVK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
AND COSTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 36, 37

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Johnson’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

13
14

ECF 34. After prevailing on summary judgment, Plaintiff moved for $11,410 in attorney’s fees

15

and $149.25 in costs. ECF 34 at 6. Plaintiff’s motion asserts that his counsel spent 39.1 hours on

16

the case and provides a list of completed tasks without detailing how much time counsel spent on

17

each task. Id. at 3-6. Defendant Daniel Castagnola opposes Plaintiff’s motion based on Plaintiff’s

18

failure to provide hourly allocations for each task. ECF 36. In response, Plaintiff’s reply provides

19

a time allocation for each type of task and a revised attorney’s fees request of $12,425. ECF 37 at

20

2-6.

21

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition

22

without oral argument and vacates the March 12, 2019 hearing. As explained below, the Court

23

GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

24
25

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant owns Castagnola Café & Deli in Capitola, California. ECF 23-1 at 2. Plaintiff,

26

who uses a wheelchair and qualifies as a disabled individual, visited the café on May 30, 2017. Id.

27

During that visit, Plaintiff encountered a number of unlawful barriers. Id. at 2–4. Based on this

28

experience, Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 26, 2018, alleging claims under the Americans

1

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). See ECF 1.

2

On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment based on facts

3

deemed admitted by Defendant’s failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s requests for admission.

4

ECF 23. When Defendant failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment by the

5

November 5, 2018 deadline, the Court issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why the

6

Court should not enter summary judgment against him. ECF 27. Both Parties responded to the

7

Court’s order to show cause. ECF 29; ECF 30; ECF 31. Defendant stated that he did not oppose

8

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment provided that Plaintiff’s statutory damages are limited to

9

$4,000. ECF 30 at 1. Because Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment and awarded

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages. ECF 32. The Court further ordered the Parties to meet and

12

confer regarding the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded and instructed Plaintiff to

13

file a motion for fees and costs if no agreement was reached. Id.

14
15

II.

LEGAL BACKGROUND
Under the ADA, “the court or agency, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party. . . a

16

reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses, and costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 12205; see also

17

Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1129–30 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A prevailing plaintiff under the

18

ADA ‘should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such

19

an award unjust.’”). California Civil Code § 52 also provides for “any attorney’s fees that may be

20

determined by the court” when a defendant discriminates against an individual in violation of the

21

Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a).

22

The Court calculates attorney’s fees according to “the ‘loadstar’ method.” Camacho v.

23

Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). This requires the Court

24

to calculate fees by starting with “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation

25

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). To

26

determine the reasonableness of an attorney’s rate, “the established standard . . . is the ‘rate

27

prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill,

28

experience, and reputation.’” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (citation omitted). And to determine the
2

1

number of hours for which to award fees, the court must “exclude . . . hours that were not

2

‘reasonably expended.’” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (quoting S.Rep. No. 94–1011, p. 6 (1976)).

3

For example, the Court may reduce hours if it “reasonably concludes that preparation of a motion

4

‘demanded little of counsel’s time.’” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir.

5

2007) (citation omitted). The party seeking fees bears the burden of providing documentation to

6

demonstrate the reasonableness of the hours spent on the litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

7

Specifically, the party must “submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed,” and

8

“[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award

9

accordingly.” Id.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees for 42.0 hours of work at rate of $350 an hour for a total of

12

$14,700. ECF 37 at 6. Plaintiff notes that the Court should deduct $2,275 from this total to

13

account for money that was ordered to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel by Defendant’s counsel as

14

part of a previous order to show cause. Id. That brings the total requested fess to $12,425. Id.

15

Plaintiff asserts that $350 per an hour is a reasonable rate for his attorney Monica Castillo.

16

ECF 34 at 6. Plaintiff supports this rate by noting that Castillo works in the San Francisco Bay

17

Area and has twenty years of litigation experience. Id. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s

18

requested rate. ECF 36. Further, the Court finds that other judges have awarded fees based on

19

similar rates in this District. See e.g. Shaw v. Five M, LLC, No. 16-CV-03955-BLF, 2017 WL

20

747465, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (approving a $450 hourly rate in an ADA case).

21

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested rate of $350 is reasonable.

22

Plaintiff’s motion asserts that Castillo spent 39.1 hours on the case. ECF 34 at 3.

23

Although Plaintiff’s motion provides a list of tasks that Castillo completed, Plaintiff’s motion fails

24

to provide the dates that Castillo completed those tasks or a breakdown of the time spent on each

25

task. Id. at 3-6. Defendant’s opposition points out this lack of detail and argues that without such

26

“information it is impossible to determine whether the time spent on those ‘tasks’ [was]

27

reasonable or excessive.” ECF 36 at 1. Plaintiff’s reply responds by providing a chart with a list

28

of tasks, the time spent on each task and the date(s) that Castillo performed each task. ECF 37 at
3

1

3-6.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s failure to set forth details regarding the dates and time

3

allocations for Castillo’s tasks prevented Defendant from meaningfully analyzing and opposing

4

Plaintiff’s motion. Indeed, even Plaintiff’s reply brief provides an inadequate level of detail.

5

Plaintiff includes multiple tasks and multiple dates for a single time entry. Id. For example,

6

Plaintiff claims 2.7 hours for (1) reviewing the Mediator’s report regarding ADR violations, (2)

7

reviewing the Court’s order to show cause, (3) preparing a response to the order show cause, (3)

8

attending two hearings and (4) reviewing the Court’s orders on September 7th, 18th and 19th;

9

October 9th and 17th; November 12th, 19th and 28th and December 20th. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s lack

10

of detail inhibits the Court’s ability to analyzing the reasonableness of the time spent on each task.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

The Court also finds that some of Plaintiff’s time entries seek to recover for unreasonable tasks or

12

an excessive amount of time spent on a task. The Court therefore reduces the hours for which

13

Plaintiff may recover according to the chart below. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115,

14

1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that if the moving party fails to provide sufficiently detailed billing

15

records, the district court may “simply reduce[] the fee to a reasonable amount”).

16
17
18

Task(s)
Prepared a request for entry of
default

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Engaged in several telephone
calls to Defendant (prior to his
representation) regarding the
pending default request

Hours
Hours
Reasoning
Claimed Approved
0.3
0.0
Plaintiff never filed a request for entry
of default in this case. Plaintiff also
failed to file an executed summons, so
the Court cannot determine if
preparation of a request for entry of
default would have been appropriate.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requested time
is unreasonable and excessive.
0.8
0.0
Plaintiff never filed a request for entry
of default in this case, so no pending
default request existed to confer with
Defendant about. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s requested time is
unreasonable and excessive.

26
27
28
4

1
2
3

Task(s)
Negotiated with Defendant’s
counsel regarding injunctive
relief

4
5
6

Prepared for and attended an
unsuccessful mediation

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Propounded form
interrogatories, requests for
documents and requests for
admissions

Hours
Hours
Reasoning
Claimed Approved
0.2
0.0
Plaintiff’s first and only visit to
Defendant’s café was May 30, 2017.
ECF 23-1 at 1. Accordingly, billing
for negotiations in April 2017, one
month prior to Plaintiff’s visit, is
unreasonable.
4.2
2.0
Given the straight forward nature of
the case, the Court finds that time spent
preparing for meditation and attending
the mediation is excessive, especially
because Defendant did not attend the
mediation (ECF 34-1 at ¶ 8). The
Court has to estimate how much time
Plaintiff spent for each task because
Plaintiff fails to provide such detail in
his motion.
3.3
1.0
Plaintiff attached his requests for
admission to his motion for summary
judgment. ECF 23-2. Such requests
are approximately one and a half pages
and could have been drafted efficiently
given the straight forward nature of the
case, counsel’s experience and the
number of ADA cases that Plaintiff has
brought. Further, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment relies only on his
requests for admission, so it is unclear
if Plaintiff’s interrogatories or
document requests were necessary.
See ECF 23-1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
requested time is unreasonable and
excessive.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Task(s)
Review Mediator’s report re
ADR violations; review
Court’s OSC to M. Welch;
prepared a response to an
OSC, reviewed Defendant’s
counsel’s response to OSC,
attended two hearings
regarding OSC issued to
Defendant’s counsel and
reviewed the Court’s orders

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Reviewed Court’s order to
show cause regarding
Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment and
prepared a response to the
order to show cause

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Correspondence with
Defendant’s counsel re
proposed date for motion for
fees and costs; prepared the
instant motion for fees and
costs, prepared reply to
Defendant’s opposition;
attended the hearing

Hours
Hours
Reasoning
Claimed Approved
2.7
1.0
Plaintiff’s task description indicates
that the Court’s order to show cause
regarding ADR violations was directed
to Defendant’s counsel. ECF 37 at 4.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s time
spent responding that order to show
cause is unreasonable. The Court must
estimate how much time Plaintiff spent
on the order to show cause response
because Plaintiff fails to provide such
detail in his motion. Similarly, the
Court has no way to evaluate the time
Plaintiff’s counsel incurred regarding
the hearings because Plaintiff failed to
provide such details.
0.6
0.1
The Court’s order to show cause
regarding Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment was directed to
Defendant and did not request a
response from Plaintiff. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s counsel’s time spent
responding the order to show cause is
unreasonable. The Court must
estimate how much time Plaintiff spent
on the order to show cause response
because Plaintiff fails to provide such
detail in his motion.
8.0
1.5
Based on the lack of detail in
Plaintiff’s motion and the role
counsel’s own time keeping records
should have had in bringing this
motion, the Court finds that the amount
of time spent preparing Plaintiff’s
motions for fees and costs is
unreasonable and excessive. The
Court further reduces the time because
the Court has taken this matter under
submission without a hearing.

24
25
26
27
28
6

Task(s)

1
2
3
4
5

Engaged in extensive and
numerous written and verbal
communications with Plaintiff
Johnson regarding status
during the entire course of this
protracted litigation

6
7
8
9

Totals:

Hours
Hours
Reasoning
Claimed Approved
5.2
0.5
Plaintiff seeks recovery for
communications on 25 different dates.
Plaintiff’s failure to separate these
tasks by date precludes the Court from
determining their reasonableness.
Further, given both Plaintiff’s and his
Counsel’s extensive ADA litigation
experience, the Court finds that the
number of hours spent on case updates,
without sufficient detail to tie those
updates to this case, is unreasonable
and excessive.
25.3

6.1

Total Reduction: 19.2 hours

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

For the reasons outlined in the chart above, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s claimed hours by

12

19.2 hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s approved hour total is 22.8 hours. This brings Plaintiff’s total

13

fees to $5,705 (22.8 x $350 = $7,980, reduced by $2,275).

14

Plaintiff seeks $149.25 in costs for $137.85 in filing fees and $11.40 in photocopying fees.

15

ECF 34 at 6. Such costs are reasonable, and as a result, the Court awards Plaintiff $149.25 in

16

costs.

17
18

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

19

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fess and costs. The Court AWARDS Plaintiff $5,705 in fees and

20

$149.25 in costs.

21

SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: February 21, 2019

24
25
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
7