From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanford v. Roseville Cycle, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 1, 2007
No. Civ. S-04-1114 RRB CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2007)

Opinion

No. Civ. S-04-1114 RRB CMK.

August 1, 2007


Memorandum of Opinion and Order


On February 12, 2007, the court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiff James Sanford, who alleged that defendant Cynthia Johnston violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state statutes. Following the entry of judgment, Sanford seeks attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $15,560.70. Defendant has not opposed plaintiff's motion. For the following reasons, the court reduces the award to $10,226.12.

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the parties have submitted memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support of their positions, it further concludes oral argument is neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant matter. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc. , 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that if the parties provided the district court with complete memoranda of the law and evidence in support of their positions, ordinarily oral argument would not be required).

I.

James Sanford, unable to walk and with limited use of his upper body and hands, must use a motorized wheelchair for mobility. On March 16, 2004, he visited Johnston's store in Elk Grove, CA, roughly fifteen miles from his home, to purchase items for his son. During his visit, Sanford encountered numerous barriers that denied him full and equal access to the facility. In his summary judgment motion, he alleged that the following architectural features served as barriers: (1) the absence of tow-away signs in the parking lot; (2) the absence of an accessible path of travel from public property to the store entrance; (3) the absence of detectable warnings where the path of travel crosses vehicular pathways or curb cuts; (4) the absence of disabled parking spaces, access aisles, and appropriate signs; (5) the absence of International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA) signs for accessible routes, parking, and entrances; (6) an excessive slope to the store's front entrance; (7) sales counters at an excessive height; (8) an improperly placed toilet paper dispenser in the men's restroom; and (9) exposed pipes under the men's restroom sink. Sanford also argued that each ADA violation found by the court necessitated a finding of an Unruh Act violation. See Cal. Civ. Code § 54(c). Johnston failed to file an opposition.

Based upon the evidence submitted by Sanford, the court granted summary judgment as to six of the nine claims, finding that Sanford lacked a legal basis for the tow-away sign and toilet-paper dispenser claims and lacked standing for the detectable warning claim. The court awarded him $4,000 and injunctive relief. Sanford now seeks attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

II.

The ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act provide that a prevailing party should recover reasonable attorney's fees. See Martinez v. Longs Drug Stores, Inc., No. Civ. S. 03-1843, 2005 WL 3287233, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2005). Calculating an appropriate fee award involves a two-step process. Fisher v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). "First, the court must calculate the `lodestar figure' by taking the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate." Id. "Second, a court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a `multiplier' based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation." Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000).

Sanford requests the following fees: $8,730 (29.10 hours at $300 per hour) for Lynn Hubbard; $475 (1.90 hours at $250 per hour) for Scott Hubbard; and $1070 (2.35 hours at $200 per hour and 4.00 hours at $150 per hour) for Mark Emmett. Additionally, Sanford seeks $1,803.75 (24.05 hours at $75 per hour) for paralegals and $3,481.95 in litigation expenses. The court finds the time expended by attorneys and paralegals and the requested litigation expenses to be reasonable given the complexity of the matter and required work. However, the court reduces the fee award for the following reasons.

A. ATTORNEY RATES

Plaintiff seeks compensation for Lynn Hubbard at $300 per hour, Scott Hubbard at $250 per hour, and Mark Emmett at $200 per hour. Courts in the Eastern District typically award fees of $250 per hour for experienced council and $150 for associates in cases of this subject matter and complexity. Wilson v. Haria Gogri Corp., No. 05-1239, 2007 WL 1795737, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2007). Because Sanford provides "no other evidence other than [the attorney's] declaration to justify [the requested] rate[s]," the court finds no reason to vary from these established rates.Martinez, 2005 WL 3287233, at *4. The court finds rates of $250 for Lynn Hubbard, $150 for Scott Hubbard and Mark Emmett to be appropriate. The court also reduces Mark Emmett's rate for travel to a court hearing to $100 per hour.

B. DEGREE OF SUCCESS

It is undisputed that Sanford is a prevailing party. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (defining prevailing party). However, "[i]n determining the lodestar figure, courts must consider the `results obtained' in the litigation, especially where a plaintiff did not succeed on some of his claims." Martinez, 2005 WL 3287233, at *3 (citing Schwarz v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, despite no opposition from Johnston, Sanford succeeded on only six of nine claims. Although the court awarded Sanford $4000, he was denied additional injunctive relief based upon the three failed claims. The three failed claims are factually distinct from those on which Sanford succeeded. Because Sanford's time records "are not sufficiently detailed to enable the court to match each entry to the corresponding claims, [. . .] the court elects to reduce the lodestar amount by a percentage that corresponds with [plaintiff's] success."Martinez, 2005 WL 3287233, at *3 (citing Hensley , 461 U.S. at 436-37). Therefore, the court reduces the total fee award by one-third.

III.

For the above reasons, the court awards the plaintiff $6,744.17 in attorneys' fees, calculated as follows: Hours Rate Total Lynn Hubbard 29.10 $250 $7,275.00 Scott Hubbard 1.90 $150 $285.00 Mark Emmett (legal work) 2.35 $150 $352.50 (travel) 4.00 $100 $400.00 Paralegal Work 24.05 $75 $1,803.75 Subtotal: $10,116.25 Negative Multiplier (1/3): $6,744.17 Additionally, the court awards plaintiff $3,481.95 in litigation expenses. In total, the court awards plaintiff $10,226.12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sanford v. Roseville Cycle, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 1, 2007
No. Civ. S-04-1114 RRB CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2007)
Case details for

Sanford v. Roseville Cycle, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES SANFORD, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVILLE CYCLE, INC., SACRAMENTO MOTOR…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 1, 2007

Citations

No. Civ. S-04-1114 RRB CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2007)