893 F.3d 1152
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Martin Vogel, a wheelchair user, sued Harbor Plaza Center, LLC under the ADA alleging inaccessible parking-lot conditions; defendant initially answered but then ceased participation.
- District court struck defendant’s answer after failure to appear at pretrial conferences and entered default and a default judgment granting injunctive relief and $4,000 statutory damages.
- Plaintiff sought $36,671.25 in attorney’s fees with a detailed, itemized declaration; district court instead applied Central District Local Rule 55‑3 fee schedule and awarded $600.
- District court justified the $600 award partly because it had awarded plaintiff all requested costs and had a local presumptive-fee schedule for default judgments.
- Plaintiff appealed only the attorney‑fee award; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the legal interpretation of the local rule and for abuse of discretion the fee award under the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate ADA attorney’s fees when default judgment entered | Local Rule 55‑3’s opt‑out procedure was invoked; court must calculate a "reasonable" fee using the lodestar (hours × rate) and adjust for results obtained | Local Rule 55‑3 presumptively fixes fees for default judgments; court may apply the schedule and deny a larger claim absent an unusual case | Ninth Circuit: When a timely written request seeks fees “in excess of” the schedule, the court must hear the request and fix a fee "as the Court may deem reasonable," i.e., apply ordinary statutory reasonableness (lodestar) methodology rather than treat the schedule as presumptively controlling |
| Entitlement to fees under ADA | Vogel is a prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees | Not contested on appeal | Court: Vogel is a prevailing party; fees may be awarded absent special circumstances making them unjust |
| Standard of review for district court’s fee award | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Ninth Circuit: de novo for legal interpretation of local rule; abuse of discretion for fee award determination |
| Court’s duty to review fee requests in defaults | Plaintiff: district court must scrutinize fee request and not defer to schedule when plaintiff seeks more | District court: schedule suffices absent modification | Ninth Circuit: in default cases the burden to ensure fees are reasonable shifts to the court; it must calculate lodestar and ensure billing judgment even if defendant does not oppose |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar is designed to produce a reasonable fee that will attract competent counsel)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method: hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly rate; adjust for results obtained)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (definition of prevailing party and entitlement to fees)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (compensate at prevailing community rate; losing party often assists in policing excessive fee requests)
- Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying fee principles to default judgment civil‑rights cases; example of substantial fee award in vigorously litigated case)