Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01676/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01676-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THELMA HARDY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-30

Inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01676 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendant State of California has filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral

argument and therefore VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for April 14, 2006. After carefully

considering the pleadings submitted, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES

defendant’s motion.

28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows a court to require “[a]ny attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings

in any case unreasonably and vexatiously . . . to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and

attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In granting costs

under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, a court must find that an attorney acted recklessly or in bad faith. Goehring

v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court does not find that the plaintiff’s counsel acted recklessly or in bad faith. Although

defendant prevailed on summary judgment, the Court disagrees with defendant that plaintiff’s behavior

was on par with the sanctionable behavior described in Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 693-94 (9th Cir.

Case 3:05-cv-01676-SI Document 45 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 The declarations submitted by the parties in connection with this motion suggest that the case

might have resolved at the outset, prior even to removal to this court, because Ms. Hardy was willing

to accept an apology by way of settlement. Decl. of William McMahon in Support of Defendant’s

Reply to Opposition to Motion for Attorney’s Fees, at 2. However, plaintiff’s counsel required

something more than that – a “monetary resolution” given the “potential amount of attorney’s fees and

costs that each party would incur.” Decl. of Andrew Wolff in Support of Opposition to Motion for

Attorney’s Fees, at 2. This suggests that in electing to proceed, counsel placed his own interests ahead

of plaintiff’s interests, which troubles the Court. It bears note that virtually all of the costs included in

the cost bill taxed against plaintiff by the Clerk, which totals $2,430.86, were incurred after removal to

this court.

2

1995).1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s

motion for attorney’s fees (Docket No. 37). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01676-SI Document 45 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2