Amber MacHowski v. 333 N. Placentia Property, LLC, 38 F.4th 837

Background

Plaintiff Machowski, a wheelchair user, sued 333 N. Placentia Property, LLC under the ADA and the Unruh Act for architectural barriers; she sought injunctive relief, statutory Unruh damages, and attorney’s fees.
Defendant defaulted; the district court granted default judgment on the ADA claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim, and entered injunctive relief.
Machowski’s default-judgment application expressly stated she would “separately file a motion for attorney fees and costs” after judgment (i.e., opt out of the Local Rule 55-3 percentage schedule).
The district court sua sponte awarded $1,000 in attorney’s fees under Central District L.R. 55-3’s fixed-percentage schedule, without allowing Machowski to file a fee motion or present lodestar evidence.
Machowski appealed; the Ninth Circuit majority vacated the fee award and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by imposing the Rule 55-3 schedule after Machowski opted out and announcing she would seek a lodestar-based award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees under C.D. Cal. L.R. 55-3 after plaintiff said she would file a separate fee motion	Machowski argued she opted out of Rule 55-3 and the court improperly cut off her right to seek a lodestar-based reasonable fee	Implicit: the court may apply Rule 55-3; Machowski never filed the lodestar motion or provided lodestar evidence	Court: Vacated fee award and remanded — where a prevailing party timely opts out and says it will file for a lodestar fee, the court may not sua sponte impose the 55-3 schedule and must allow a fee motion
Whether Rule 55-3’s schedule applies to non-monetary (injunctive-only) judgments	Machowski argued the schedule does not sensibly apply to a $0 monetary judgment and she sought lodestar	District court applied 55-3 anyway and awarded $1,000	Court: Not necessary to decide definitively here, but observed Rule 55-3’s schedule starts at $0.01 and is ambiguous as to injunctive relief; vacated because of procedural error rather than resolving the substantive fit
Whether a fee applicant must file a fee motion "at the time of entry" of default judgment under Rule 55-3	Machowski relied on Rule 55-3 language but the court read her statement as opting out and preserving right to seek fees later	District court relied on Rule 55-3 to award fees immediately	Court: Construes C.D. Cal. L.R. 54-7 (14 days after entry of judgment) to govern the timing of fee motions and avoids a conflict with 55-3; plaintiff may file within Rule 54-7 time period
Whether Machowski forfeited the right to seek lodestar fees by failing to move in district court	Dissent argued she forfeited by not filing the lodestar motion and by not seeking reconsideration	Majority: plaintiff clearly informed court she would file a fee motion but was prevented from doing so by the court’s sua sponte award	Court: No forfeiture — plaintiff’s notice sufficed and the district court’s action cut off her opportunity to pursue lodestar relief

Key Cases Cited

Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2018) (interprets C.D. Cal. L.R. 55-3 and explains opt-out to seek lodestar under ADA default judgments)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar as starting point and allowance for adjustments)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (burden to show market rates and supporting evidence for fee awards)
United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2015) (applicant’s initial burden to produce satisfactory evidence for fee request)
Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2019) (post-lodestar adjustment factors remain in district court’s discretion)
Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (identifies factors not subsumed in lodestar)
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (U.S. 2020) (party presentation principle on appellate review)