Jankey v. Song Koo Lee
55 Cal. 4th 1038
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Jankey, a wheelchair user, sued Lee for disability access violations at K&D Market under federal and state laws.
- Lee prevailed on summary judgment, asserting barrier removal was not readily achievable and obtaining judgment on four claims.
- Lee moved for attorney fees under Civil Code §55; Jankey argued §55 was preempted by the ADA or that fees were only for frivolous claims.
- Trial court awarded Lee $118,458 in §55 fees; Court of Appeal affirmed.
- California Supreme Court held §55 authorizes mandatory fees to the prevailing party and is not preempted by the ADA; overlap with ADA claims does not bar §55 fees.
- Remand to fix amounts of fees is ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §55 mandates attorney fees for a prevailing party | Jankey contends §55 is not mandatory or preempted by the ADA | Lee argues §55 is bilateral and mandatory for a prevailing party | §55 fees are mandatory for a prevailing party |
| Whether the ADA preempts §55 | ADA preempts §55 as a broader regime for fees | ADA §501(b) preserves state remedies with greater protection | ADA §501(b) does not preempt §55; §55 can coexist when state law offers greater protection |
| Whether overlapping defense work for ADA claims bars §55 fees | Fees for overlapping work should be barred by ADA defense limits | §55 fees can cover overlapping state-law defenses independent of ADA work | Overlapping defense work is not barred; §55 fee recovery stands |
| How ADA §501(b) construction affects preemption | Construction clause preempts weaker state laws | Clause shields stronger state remedies from preemption | §501(b) is a construction shield; state remedies with greater protection are not preempted |
| Whether the Court should adopt Hubbard’s conflict preemption reasoning | Ninth Circuit Hubbard requires no §55 fees if overlapping with ADA claims | State fee remedy can coexist with ADA claims | Conflict preemption rejected; §55 fees may be awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2009) (addresses preemption of state fees by ADA; conflicts not controlling here)
- Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009) (ADA overlap with state law remedies; standing and remedies analyzed)
- Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, 164 Cal.App.4th 786 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (§55 fee as mandatory for prevailing party; scope of relief)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (frivolousness standard for defense fees under ADA)
- Jones v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 467 F.Supp.2d 1004 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (federal defense-fee framework applying Christiansburg)
- Goodell v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 207 F.Supp.2d 1124 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (defense fees under ADA context; district court decisions cited)
- Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc., 311 F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 2002) (overlap between state and federal claims does not automatically embody ADA fees)
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124 (Cal. 1980) (fee-shifting principles in overlapping claims)