Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00585-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD L. KEMPER, )

) 2:06-cv-585-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

SACRAMENTO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL )

GROUP, INC., dba ADVANCED IMAGING )

CENTER OF CARMICHAEL, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Pending is Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and/or

sanctions. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on August 29,

2007, after Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted on

Plaintiff’s federal claims and Plaintiff’s state law claims were

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s

motion.

Defendant argues its entitlement to attorney’s fees under 28

U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent power to sanction. But an

award of attorney’s fees under § 1927 requires a judicial finding that

Case 2:06-cv-00585-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 03/10/08 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

Plaintiff acted in bad faith, which has not been shown. Further,

Defendant has not shown that use of the Court’s inherent authority is

appropriate where other rules and statutes address the attorney’s fees

award Defendant seeks. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for attorney’s

fees on these grounds is denied.

Defendant also argues its entitlement to attorney’s fees

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Attorney’s fees should only be awarded to

a prevailing defendant in an ADA or Rehabilitation Act action “under

exceptional circumstances, upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action

was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Peters v. Winco

Foods, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1037 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (citing

Summers v. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997));

see also Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 191 F.3d 8, 10 (1st Cir.

1999) (indicating that the standard for awarding attorney’s fees under

the Rehabilitation Act is the same as the ADA standard). An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Peters, 320

F. Supp. 2d at 1037.

Defendant contends that two of Plaintiff’s claims were

frivolous; specifically, the claim that Defendant provided inadequate

parking spaces and the claim that Defendant’s x-ray imaging table was

too tall. (Def.’s Mot. for Atty’s Fees (“Mot.”) at 13:4-14:8.) 

Defendant does not contend that all of Plaintiff’s claims were

frivolous, and fails to explain why fees should be awarded in this

situation. Cf. Peters, 320 F. Supp. 2d at 1040 (“[T]he court

recognizes that [attorney’s fees] awards [under the ADA] will rarely

be appropriate where plaintiff has asserted significant meritorious

claims.”).

Case 2:06-cv-00585-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 03/10/08 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

Defendant further contends that approximately four months

after Plaintiff filed his Complaint, Defendant “agreed to give []

[P]laintiff everything he asked for with regards to injunctive

relief,” and also offered Plaintiff sufficient monetary damages,

therefore Plaintiff’s further litigation was frivolous. (Mot. at

2:22-23.) On June 28, 2006, Defendant’s counsel wrote a letter to

Plaintiff’s counsel offering to remedy the barriers to disabled access

that Plaintiff described in his Complaint, and to pay Plaintiff $6,200

for attorney’s fees and damages. (See Decl. of Catherine Corfee in

Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Atty’s Fees, Ex. A.) The next day, Defendant

served Plaintiff with a formal Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68

offer to settle that encompassed the same terms as the June 28 letter. 

(See id., Ex. B.) On July 10, 2006, Defendant served Plaintiff with

an “Unconditional Stipulation to Voluntarily Make Access Changes.” 

(See id., Ex. C.) Plaintiff declined these offers and continued to

litigate his ADA claims for injunctive relief and state law claims for

damages.

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s further litigation was

frivolous since Defendant’s offers and sworn statement that ADA

changes were being made at the premises rendered Plaintiff’s ADA

injunction claims moot, and Defendant had offered Plaintiff sufficient

monetary relief under California law. (Mot. at 4:9-22.)

However, Plaintiff sought $4,000 in damages under

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act for each of his six visits to

Defendant’s premises. (Opp’n at 16:1-20.) Defendant argues

Plaintiff’s claim for $4,000 per visit was frivolous, since Gunther v.

Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 (2006), established that Plaintiff could

not recover under the Unruh Act unless Plaintiff could prove

Case 2:06-cv-00585-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 03/10/08 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

intentional discrimination. (Mot. at 4:9-22.) However, Plaintiff

cites contrary authority on which he relies for the proposition that

he was not required to establish intentional discrimination. (Opp’n

at 16 (citing Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847

(9th Cir. 2004) and Wilson v. Haria & Gogri Corp., 479 F. Supp. 2d

1127, 1136, 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2007)).) Plaintiff’s authority shows that

his position on damages was not frivolous. See Lopez v. Del Taco

Restaurant Properties, II, 2007 WL 1852113, at *1 (9th Cir. June 27,

2007) (stating even where the defendant “had offered to remedy the

alleged ADA violations,” the defendant has not shown it was frivolous

for the plaintiff to continue pursuing the state damages claim). 

Accordingly, Defendant has not shown it is entitled to attorney’s fees

under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for attorney’s

fees is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00585-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 03/10/08 Page 4 of 4