Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Scott JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karim MEHRABI, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-15736
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 28, 2017
    Russell Clive Handy, Esquire, Mark D. Potter, Esquire, Dennis J. Price, II, Esquire, Mr,, Potter Handy LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Karim Mehrabi, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for .decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Scott Johnson appeals from the district court’s order denying as moot his motion for attorney’s fees in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of Johnson’s motion for attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion because Johnson failed to set forth any basis for such an award. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Vir. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 600, 604-05, 610, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (discussing motions for attorney’s fees brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and explaining that “prevailing party” does not include a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree); Doran v. N. State Grocery, Inc., 137 Cal.App.4th 484, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 922, 925-27 (2006) (an award for attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) requires a finding of liability).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.