Johnson v. Wayside Property, Inc
2:13-cv-01610
E.D. Cal.Nov 21, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Scott Johnson, a quadriplegic, asserted ADA, UCRA, California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims against Wayside Property, Inc. and J&C M Holding, Inc.
- Court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiff on ADA/UCRA barriers but not on UCRA damages, leading to settlement for $6,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined by motion.
- Settlement documented as $6,000 in damages with provision for reasonable fees and litigation expenses to be set by noticed motion.
- Plaintiff seeks a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and related California statutes; defendants challenge reasonableness.
- Court conducts lodestar calculation: hours reasonably expended times reasonable hourly rates, then potential adjustments; no multiplier requested.
- Court ultimately awards $14,387.50 in fees and $690 in costs, with $6,727.50 in expert-fees costs disallowed as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of lodestar hours | Potter Handy Ballister Grace Lockhart hours are reasonable. | Senior attorneys’ time could be handled by associates; several entries were clerical or duplicative. | Court reduces several entries; finds overall reasonable hours: Potter 28.6, Handy 12.8, Ballister 2.5, Grace 2.3, Lockhart 6.1. |
| Reasonable hourly rates in Sacramento disability cases | Rates should reflect Sacramento market and expertise in disability access. | Rates should be lower; CDA lawyers handle routine cases; reliance on out-of-district authorities improper. | Potter and Handy set at $300/hr; Ballister at $260/hr; Grace at $175/hr; Lockhart at $150/hr. |
| Whether to adjust Lodestar via Kerr factors | Kerr factors justify higher rates due to experience and client impact. | No need for multiplier; case is routine disability access matter. | No adjustment; lodestar retained as reasonable without multiplier. |
| Allowance of costs for attorney’s fees expert | O’Connor's rates aid in determining reasonable fees. | Expert costs are unnecessary and wasteful in a routine motion; not reimbursable. | Expert costs denied; court finds ordinary declarations preferable. |
| Overall award of fees and costs | Total requested fees are reasonable under lodestar. | Fees and costs should be reduced to reflect reasonableness. | Award granted: $14,387.50 in fees and $690 in costs; no multiplier. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (prevailing party standard for fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar and adjustment framework)
- Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (enumerates factors for adjusting lodestar)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (2011) (rough justice approach to fee determinations; no perfection required)
- Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1997) (forum community rate determination)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (presumption that lodestar is reasonable)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (staffing decisions and reasonable rates in civil rights fees)
- Davis v. City & County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (clerical tasks generally not billable; overhead principle)