Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01114-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROSEVILLE CYCLE, INC., 

SACRAMENTO MOTOR SPORTS, INC., 

and CYNTHIA JOHNSTON, 

 Defendants. /

No. Civ. S-04-1114 RRB CMK 

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 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

plaintiff’s motion. For the following reasons, the court 

reduces the award to $10,226.12.1 

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 

 

1

 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).

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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. 

 ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 45 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 6