Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02593/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02593-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

- 1 - 05CV2593

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04CV2593-LAB (LSP)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

[Docket no. 87.]

vs.

STONECREST CARE AUTO CENTER,

LLC dba SHELL; VINCENT D. MANNO,

Trustee of the VINCENT D. MANNO

TRUST; CAROL ANN CARLETON,

FILOMENA R. BUCKINGHAM and

AMELIA M. LUCAS, Trustees of the

CAROL A. CARLETON TRUST, Trustees

of the FILOMENA R. BUCKINGHAM

TRUST, and Trustees of the AMELIA M.

LUCAS TRUST; LARRY M. LUCAS and

AMELIA M. LUCAS, Trustees of the

LUCAS FAMILY TRUST, 

Defendants.

Following dismissal of all claims at trial for lack of jurisdiction, Defendants filed a motion for

an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11

and 54. Their motion was supported by a memorandum of points and authorities (“Fee Mem.”)

Defendants have asked the Court to take judicial notice of several documents, including the

original and amended complaints in this action, certain interrogatory responses, and certain exhibits

in support of one of Plaintiff’s motions in limine. Because these documents are all part of the docket

in this case, parties need not formally request judicial notice. Because Defendants have requested it,

Case 3:04-cv-02593-LAB-LSP Document 97 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 05CV2593

however, and because notice is appropriate under Fed. R. Evid. 201, these requests are GRANTED.

Defendants have also asked the Court to take judicial notice of an order of dismissal in an unpublished

case in which attorney’s fees were awarded. (Fee Mem. at 3:25–4:3.) This case, brought in the

Central District of California, involved different parties. In essence, Defendants are asking this Court

to rely on this order as having precedential value. This request is DENIED.

Under § 12205, the Court may, in its discretion award fees and costs to the “prevailing party”

in an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit. Under Rule 54, a “prevailing party” is

entitled to costs as a matter of course, but is entitled to fees and non-taxable costs only if provided for

by law. Rule 54(d)(1)–(2)(A).

In this case, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claim for lack of standing, eliminating

jurisdiction over his remaining supplemental state law claims. Dismissal for lack of standing is not,

however, a judgment on the merits such would entitle a defendant to an award of costs and fees as a

prevailing party under the ADA. Feezor v. Lopez De-Jesus, 439 F. Supp.2d 1109, 1110–11 (S.D.Cal.,

2006) (citation omitted). Likewise, a defendant is not a “prevailing party” for Rule 54(d) purposes

when an action is dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, so the Court cannot award costs under this rule.

Miles v. California, 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2003).

Defendants argue they are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under either Rule 11, or 28

U.S.C. § 1927 because this entire action was frivolous. (Fee Mem., at 2:23–25, 3:3–5.) Under 28

U.S.C. § 1927, “Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United

States . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required

by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred

because of such conduct.” “Section 1927 sanctions must be supported by a finding of subjective bad

faith,” which “is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or

argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.” B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept.,

276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). An action is frivolous when “the result is

obvious or the arguments of error advanced are wholly without merit.” Int’l Union of Petroleum &

Industrial Works v. W. Indus. Maint., Inc., 707 F.2d 425, 430 (9th Cir. 1983).

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-02593-LAB-LSP Document 97 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 05CV2593

Based on the pleadings and the evidence presented at trial, the Court cannot conclude the action

was wholly without merit or lacked even an arguable basis in fact or law, or was otherwise

sanctionable. The Court’s ruling in this case, that Plaintiff lacked standing, had to navigate a field of

apparently contradictory precedent that rendered the ruling non-obvious. For example, the Court’s

ruling distinguished dicta in two other cases, Organization for Advancement of Minorities with

Disabilities v. Brick Oven Restaurant, 406 F. Supp.2d 1120 (S.D.Cal. 2005) and Molski v. Arby’s

Huntington Beach, 359 F. Supp.2d 938, 941 (C.D.Cal. 2005). See Harris v. Stonecrest Auto Center,

LLC, 472 F. Supp.2d 1208, 1217–18 (S.D.Cal. 2007). 

As discussed in the Court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law, see Harris, 472 F.

Supp.2d at 1215, the Court is concerned about the use of ADA claims as part of a “shakedown

scheme,” a trend noted by other courts as well. Defendants have argued Plaintiff brought this action

as part of such a scheme. (Fee Mem. at 9:1–10:8.) It is true Plaintiff was a poor witness who appeared

unable to remember details unfavorable to his case. Plaintiff’s main difficulty, however, was with

facts showing whether he had standing under federal law. Adequate evidence was presented at trial

to support a finding that Plaintiff was disabled, that he had visited the premises in question, and that

some barriers existed. Although many of the barriers clearly did not affect him, some apparently did,

or could have done so.

The only remedy available under Title III of the ADA is injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C.

§ 12199(a)(1); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002). While Plaintiff lacked standing

to seek this remedy, the Court never examined whether he would have had standing to bring his state

law claims for damages and injunctive relief. 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s supplemental state claims because his federal claim was

dismissed, and not because the Court found Plaintiff lacked standing to bring those claims. In addition

to his claims for damages based on the barriers he encountered, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief for

barriers that could potentially affect him. Under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955, a plaintiff need

only be “potentially aggrieved” to obtain injunctive relief. While Plaintiff did not clearly identify

which of the barriers he was not injured by, he did make some effort to explain he was not claiming

damages for all barriers that existed. (Fee Mem. at 3:21–4:13.) This action would have been resolved

Case 3:04-cv-02593-LAB-LSP Document 97 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 05CV2593

more easily, quickly, and inexpensively if Plaintiff’s counsel had clearly identified which barriers

Plaintiff was not claiming damages for, but the Court is not persuaded the presence of some irrelevant

allegations in the pleadings supports a finding of frivolousness or bad faith.

Although the Court found Plaintiff visited the premises in question simply in order to see if

there were any ADA violations and not as a bona fide patron, such an action, by itself, does not

necessarily constitute bad faith. See Harris, 472 F. Supp.2d at 1218–19 (citing cases examining

standing of disabled “testers”).

 The Court therefore concludes an award of Attorney’s fees under either Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927 would be inappropriate.

Defendants’ motion for award of costs and fees is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 21, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02593-LAB-LSP Document 97 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 4