Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Plaintiff appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Richard A. Paez, J., awarding defendant university one-third of its requested fees. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding one-third of requested attorney fees to university, given that plaintiff continued to make spurious and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against numerous entities.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Richard A. Paez, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Hesham El-Mosalamy appeals pro se the district court's attorneys' fees award of $12,780 to Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science ("University"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's order granting attorneys' fees, LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Because El-Mosalamy continues to make spurious and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct against numerous entities, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to the University. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam). The district court judge concluded that the action was properly dismissed without proceeding to trial, considered El-Mosalamy's pro se status, and considered the lodestar method and El-Mosalamy's financial status before awarding approximately one-third of the University's requested attorneys' fees. See Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir.1987).
AFFIRMED.