Doud v. Yellow Cab of Reno, Inc.
3:13-cv-00664
D. Nev.Sep 23, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Melodie and James Doud obtained a preliminary injunction and partial summary judgment on Title III (ADA) denial-of-service claims against Yellow Cab of Reno.
- The court awarded interim attorneys’ fees of $152,273 and costs of $4,122.06 by order entered May 18, 2015.
- Yellow Cab did not pay the awarded fees and waited over three months before seeking a stay of enforcement pending final judgment/appeal.
- The Douds moved for an order to show cause to hold Yellow Cab in contempt for failure to pay; they also requested fines or daily penalties if payment was delayed.
- Yellow Cab argued interim fee awards are not enforceable until final judgment and sought a stay to avoid potential irretrievable payment if it prevailed on appeal.
- The court denied the stay, ordered payment within 14 days, and held the contempt motion in abeyance pending compliance, warning that failure to pay may result in a contempt finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may award and enforce interim attorneys’ fees in a civil-rights/ADA case where the plaintiff prevailed on some claims | Douds: Court may award fees pendente lite where plaintiff prevailed on merits of some claims; enforcement appropriate and contempt available for nonpayment | Yellow Cab: Interim award is not a final, appealable judgment; enforcement should be stayed until final judgment to avoid irretrievable payment if appeal succeeds | Held: Court may issue and enforce interim fee awards where party prevailed on some claims; denied stay and ordered payment within 14 days |
| Whether Yellow Cab showed entitlement to a stay pending appeal | Douds: Stay is not of right; Yellow Cab failed to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, public interest, timeliness, or bond | Yellow Cab: Immediate enforcement is unfair; no final judgment; payment could be irretrievable; public interest disfavors enforcement given limited victory | Held: Yellow Cab presented no evidence of inability to repay or other justification; court denied stay |
| Whether Douds are entitled to contempt sanctions for nonpayment now | Douds: Failure to obey fee order warrants civil contempt and possible daily fines | Yellow Cab: Requested stay instead of contempt; argued enforcement should await appeal | Held: Court held contempt motion in abeyance, gave 14 days to pay or negotiate; warned contempt likely if noncompliant |
| Whether Yellow Cab waived its argument by not raising it earlier | Douds: Yellow Cab did not raise lack-of-authority-to-award-interim-fees when opposing the interim fee motion | Yellow Cab: Did not directly address waiver | Held: Court noted Yellow Cab failed to raise the argument earlier but proceeded to address legal merit; interim award authority established |
Key Cases Cited
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (ADA’s purpose and background for fee-shifting)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee-shifting principle to ensure access to courts)
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (policy rationale for fee awards to successful civil-rights plaintiffs)
- Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (use of §1988 framework to assess prevailing-party status under ADA)
- Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 (1980) (Congress contemplated pendente lite fee awards when party prevails on some claims)
- Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (1974) (upholding interim fees to avoid hardship on plaintiffs and counsel)
- Rosenfeld v. United States, 859 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1988) (requiring evidence to support claim that repayment would be impossible when seeking to avoid interim enforcement)
- Mills v. Elec. Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1970) (example of interlocutory fees when liability established prior to final remedial orders)