Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01182/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01182-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

L. J. QUINN’S RESTAURANT & SUPPLY,

INC., a California corporation, EMBARCADERO

COVE ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited

liability company, CITY OF OAKLAND, a

municipal corporation, acting by and through its

port commissioners, and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-01182 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiff’s counsel

moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. For the reasons explained below, the motion is

DENIED as untimely and the March 14 hearing is VACATED. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Scott Johnson, a disabled person, encountered accessibility barriers when he

patronized a restaurant owned by defendant L.J. Quinn’s Restaurant & Supply, Inc. in Oakland,

California. Plaintiff initiated this action in February 2018, alleging violations of Tittle III of the

ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. An amended complaint, adding defendant City

of Oakland, followed in April 2018. Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement discussions

but plaintiff initiated no motion practice and the parties exchanged no discovery (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8,

42).

Case 3:18-cv-01182-WHA Document 44 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff ultimately accepted defendant’s August 2018 amended offer of judgment under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The offer provided that defendant would pay $8,300 in

damages and remedy the premises to comply with applicable laws. In accordance with these

terms, the Court entered judgment on December 18, 2018. Plaintiff now moves for an award of

attorney’s fees and costs (Dkt. Nos. 26, 39–40). This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds plaintiff’s motion suitable for submission without oral

argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 14.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asks for an award of $23,202 in attorney’s fees and costs. Attorney’s fees are

available to the prevailing party under both the ADA and the Unruh Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12205;

Cal. Civ. Code. § 52. Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff is the prevailing party, but rather

argues that plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees or costs because the instant motion is

untimely. 

Rule 54(d)(2)(B)(i) provides that a request for attorney’s fees must “be filed no later

than 14 days after the entry of judgment.” Local Rule 54-5 also provides that “[u]nless

otherwise ordered by the Court . . . motions for awards of attorney’s fees by the Court must be

served and filed within 14 days of entry of judgment by the District Court.” “Although the 14-

day period is not jurisdictional, the failure to comply [with Rule 54] should be sufficient reason

to deny the fee motion, absent some compelling showing of good cause.” Kona Enters., Inc. v.

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889–90 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted) (alteration in original). 

Here, plaintiff did not file his motion for attorney’s fees until January 25, over five

weeks after the Court entered judgment. Plaintiff essentially concedes that he failed to meet

Rule 54(d)(2)(B) and Local Rule 54-5’s timing requirements, arguing only that the instant

motion “is filed pursuant to a contractual agreement of the parties under [Rule] 68" (Dkt. No. 43

at 1). The only reference to attorney’s fees in the Rule 68 offer, however, is the directive that

“[the] Offer of Judgment shall not be filed with the Court unless (a) accepted or (b) in a

proceeding to determine costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” The Rule 68 offer is silent on

Case 3:18-cv-01182-WHA Document 44 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff’s deadline to file the instant motion. Plaintiff fails to explain, moreover, how the

parties’ agreement in this regard would have been sufficient to overcome Rule 54(d)(2)(B) and

Local Rule 54-5's timing requirements. Because plaintiff indisputably missed the 14-day period

to request attorney’s fees and has failed to show good cause for doing so, his motion for

attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is 

DENIED as untimely. The March 14 hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-01182-WHA Document 44 Filed 03/11/19 Page 3 of 3