Michael Rocca v. Den 109 Lp, 684 F. App'x 667

Plaintiff Michael Rocca sued Denny’s alleging multiple ADA violations (parking and restroom accessibility) and sought injunctive relief and attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 55.
At trial the district court granted summary adjudication to Rocca on three claims, tried other claims, and entered judgment for defendants on five alleged violations; Rocca appealed both merits and denial of fees.
The district court found Rocca lacked standing to challenge three parking-related barriers because on his single visit he parked without difficulty and the court found he neither intended to return nor was deterred.
The district court also found Rocca not credible about his purpose for visiting and discounted his testimony about restroom maneuvering space; photographic evidence supported sufficient pipe-wrapping.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on standing and on the restroom-substantive issues (crediting the district court’s credibility findings), but reversed the denial of attorney’s fees, concluding Rocca was the prevailing party for fee purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge parking barriers	Rocca alleged he encountered violations and sought injunctive relief; intended to return or was deterred	Rocca did not suffer an injury on his visit, lacked intent to return, and was not deterred	Affirmed: no standing—court credited lack of injury, intent, and deterrence
Sufficiency of evidence re: restroom maneuvering space	Rocca’s testimony about inadequate space proved ADA violation; expert testimony not required	Testimony was unreliable; photographs and lack of credible measurements defeat claim	Affirmed: district court’s adverse credibility finding meant plaintiff failed to prove violation
Sufficiency of pipe-wrapping under sink	Alcove pipes insufficiently insulated/wrapped in violation of ADA	Photographs showed adequately wrapped pipes; testimony not credible	Affirmed: factual finding that pipes were sufficiently wrapped was not clearly erroneous
Award of attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 55	Rocca sought fees as prevailing party because Denny’s was legally obligated to remedy violations after summary adjudication and judgment	District court denied fees citing skepticism that Rocca prevailed and concerns about plaintiff’s history and attorney time	Reversed: Rocca was prevailing party and denial was erroneous; issues about amount and reductions remain for remand

Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for standing and related factual findings)
D’lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (standing and intent-to-return precedent)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (tester standing discussion)
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (injunctive-relief standing requires intent to return or deterrence)
O’Bannon v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) (review standards for bench trial findings)
Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc., 782 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (weight of lay testimony on ADA barriers and credibility)
Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2013) (testimonial evidence may suffice but is subject to credibility determinations)
Barrios v. California Interscholastic Fed’n, 277 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2002) (defining prevailing party for injunctive relief)
Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2008) (limitations on denying fees for a plaintiff’s litigation history)
Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (intent-to-return analysis where business is far from plaintiff’s home)
Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (examples of evidence supporting intent to return)