Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00335/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00335-5/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 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARY FEEZOR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

vs.

OTAY LAKES ROAD, L.P., et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Lary Feezor (“Plaintiff”) has brought a motion for attorney’s fees and costs

against Defendant Thrifty Payless, Inc., dba Rite Aid (“Rite Aid”). For the reasons discussed

below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Otay

Lakes Road, LP; Sutherland Management Co. dba McDonald’s #14228; Golden Arch

Limited Partnership; Thrifty Payless, Inc. dba Rite Aid #5617; WEC 98-G-3, LLC;

Capitas Group, LLC dba Arby’s # 7057; The Vons Companies, Inc. dba Vons #2071;

Blockbuster, Inc. dba Blockbuster Video # 6682; Lahorian Capital Group, Inc. dba

IHOP # 827; IHOP Corp.; IHOP Properties, Inc.; Michael M. Schreter, Trustee of the

Michael M. and Barbara J. Schreter Trust dated July 21, 1989 (aka the MBS Trust,

July 21, 1989) as amended and restated; and, Barbara J. Schreter, Trustee of the

Michael M. and Barbara J. Schreter Trust dated July 21, 1989 (aka the MBS Trust,

July, 21, 1989) as amended and restated. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, a paraplegic

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 9
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 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

who uses a wheelchair and a mobility-equipped vehicle when traveling about in public,

encountered a number of architectural barriers at the facilities located within the Eastlake

Village Shopping Center located at 2230-2290 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista , California.

The Complaint asserts violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., California’s Unruh

Act (Cal. Civil Code § 52), Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and California’s Disabled Persons Act.

By December 28, 2007, all of the defendants, except Rite Aid and WEC 98G-3 LLC,

were dismissed from the action. On November 26, 2007 plaintiff accepted a Rule 68 Offer

by Rite Aid. The Rule 68 Offer provided for injunctive relief, a payment of damages in the

amount of $4,001.00, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. On December 20, 2007,

the Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Rite Aid in accordance with the

Rule 68 Offer.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 42 U.S.C. §12205, the “prevailing party” in an ADA action can recover

“reasonable attorney’s fees, including litigation expenses, and costs.” Likewise,

the prevailing plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs under California’s disability

access laws. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 54.3(a), 55. Judgment was entered in favor of

Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is a “prevailing party.” 

The amount of the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees is calculated by

utilizing the lodestar method. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2008 WL

1792808, *3 (9th Cir. 2008). To calculate the “lodestar,” the court multiplies the number of

hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable rate.

Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a strong

presumption that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Harris v Marhoefer, 24

F.3d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1994). 

However, courts may adjust the lodestar figure upward or downward based upon the

following factors enunciated in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.

1975): (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 9
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 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6)

whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the

circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience,

reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature

and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.

“Among the subsumed factors presumably taken into account in either the reasonable hours

component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar calculation are: (1) the novelty

and complexity of the issues, (2) the special skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality

of representation (4) the results obtained and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement.”

Morales, 96 F.3d at 364 n. 9.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,591.25. The breakdown of the

requested fees is as follows:

 Name Hours Rate Total

Lynn Hubbard, III 24.95 $350/hr $8,732.50

Lynn Hubbard, III (travel) 4.00 $175/hr $ 700.00

Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV .75 $225/hr $ 168.75

Paralegals 11.00 $ 90/hr $ 990.00

As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court

makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks, work that

should not be billed to the client, work performed by Lynn Hubbard that could have been

performed by a more junior attorney, and clerical tasks performed by paralegals.

1. Lynn Hubbard’s Fees

Rite Aid argues that the fees claimed by Lynn Hubbard are excessive. Rite Aid

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 3 of 9
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 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

argues that the hourly rate of $350 per hour (for non-travel time) is not reasonable given that

no novel or complex issues were raised by the case, the parties did not engage in discovery,

and no motions (other than the instant motion for attorney’s fees) were filed. Rite Aid

reasons that a more junior attorney, such as Scottlynn Hubbard, could have performed the

work billed by Lynn. Scottlynn billed less than an hour on this case. The Court agrees that

the hourly rate of $350 is excessive given the type of work done and finds that $250 an hour

is reasonable.

Rite Aid also argues that the fees for certain tasks should be divided among the nine

defendants who were still in the case at the time. For example, Rite Aid claims that it should

be held responsible for only 1/9 of the fees billed for a trip to San Diego for meet and confer

inspections at the shopping center and for travel time and attendance at the ENE. The Court

will divide the fees incurred in connection with the meet and confer inspections and the ENE.

However, only four defendants had answered at the time of the meet and confer inspections,

and only three defendants attended the ENE. Therefore, the fees in question will be divided

by four or three, whichever is applicable. 

Rite Aid challenges specific time entries on the ground that they should not be

compensable or are excessive. As detailed below, the Court agrees that a number of these

time entries should be disallowed or reduced.

 Date Description Time 

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for Reduction

1/25/07 Conflict check .30 0 Unclear whether conflict

check was for Rite Aid

defendants. Plaintiff’s

counsel has filed multiple

complaints against Rite Aid.

2/20/07 Letter to client re: fee

agreement

.15 0 Not a billable task

2/20/07 Create client fee

agreement

.25 0 Not a billable task.

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 4 of 9
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

 Date Description Time 

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for Reduction

5 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

4/10/07 Review letter from

defense counsel re:

extension of time for

Rite Aide to respond to

Complaint

.20 .10 Letter was a two-sentence

letter that would take no

more than a minute to

review.

4/13/07 Review Notice of

Noncompliance with

Local Rule 5.4(a)

Mandatory Electronic

Filing

.10 0 Notice is not a substantive

notice or order that requires

time to review. 

4/17/07 Travel to and from San

Diego for meet and

confer at subject

property

2 .5 Time is equally divided

among four defendants who

had answered the

Complaint.

4/17/07 Meet and confer at

subject property

1 .2 Time is equally divided

among four defendants who

had answered the

Complaint.

4/20/07 Letter to defense

counsel re: settlement

demand

.70 .50 Much of settlement letter

was form language

4/27/07 Letter to defense

counsel re: ownership of

Rite Aid Property

.70 .20 Letter was very brief and did

not require 42 minutes to

draft.

5/1/07 Travel to and from San

Diego for ENE

2 .7 Time is equally divided

among three defendants

who attended the ENE

5/1/07 Attend ENE 1.5 .5 Time is equally divided

among three defendants

who attended the ENE.

7/23/07 Review Defendants’

Initial Disclosures; meet

with Crista [paralegal]

regarding defendants’

witnesses

.70 .50 Initial disclosures were very

brief and identified only two

witnesses.

9/13/07 Review letter from

defense counsel re:

status of settlement

negotiations

.15 .10 Three-sentence letter did not

require more than a minute

to review.

10/3/07 Review letter from

defense counsel re:

status of Offer of

Judgment

.20 .10 One paragraph letter did not

require more than a minute

to review.

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 5 of 9
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

 Date Description Time 

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for Reduction

6 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

10/29/07 Prepare Disclosure of

Plaintiffs Expert, Ronald

Wilson

.65 .20 Plaintiff’s counsel has form

expert witness disclosure for

Ronald Wilson. 

10/30/07 Review Defendants’

Designation of Expert

Witness; phone call with

client

1.30 .50 Expert witness designated

by Rite Aid has been used

numerous times in past 

litigation with Plaintiff’s

counsel. Vague description

regarding phone call with

client.

11/13/07 Review Defendants’

Supplemental

Designation of Expert

Witness; phone call with

Plaintiff’s expert.

.90 .50 Expert witness designated

by Rite Aid has been used

numerous times in past 

litigation with Plaintiff’s

counsel. 

12/21/07 Prepare Bill of Costs 2.00 .7 Simple form should not

require the requested time.

12/28/07 Prepare Plaintiffs

Motion for Attorney

Fees

4.00 3.00 Appears to be a form motion

that was also filed in another

case. (Def.’s Ex. 19.)

The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable.

Taking into account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the

recovery of 17.25 hours worked by Lynn Hubbard at the rate of $250 and 1.2 hours at the

rate of $175, for a total of $4,522.50. No upward or downward adjustment to the lodestar

amount is warranted.

2. Scottlynn Hubbard’s Fees 

Although Rite Aid does not object to the amount of time billed by Scottlynn (.75 hours),

Rite Aid argues that a reasonable rate for an associate attorney in the Eastern District of

California is $150 per hour. However, “[g]enerally, when determining a reasonable hourly

rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport

Financial, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 1792808, *4 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court finds that $225

per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for an experienced senior associate (see Def.’s Ex. 19)

in the Southern District of California. Accordingly, the Court will allow recovery of the

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 6 of 9
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

 Rite Aid argues that “calendering” is clerical in nature. However, the Court will allow

recovery for time “calendering” because part of a paralegal’s job is calculating the deadlines

for certain tasks, which is done by properly calendering events.

7 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

$168.75 in fees billed by Scottlynn Hubbard.

3. Paralegal Billing 

Rite Aid requests that the Court reduce the paralegals’ hourly rate to $75. However,

the Court finds that $90 per hour is a reasonable rate in this district. 

Rite Aid seeks a reduction of the hours billed by the paralegals on the ground that

excessive time was spent on certain tasks. Rite Aid also seeks a reduction of the hours on

the ground that the paralegals billed for the performance of clerical tasks.

Time spent on filing, document organization, and other clerical matters should not be

billed at a paralegal rate, but, rather should be accounted for by a law firm’s overhead. See

Jones v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1016 (S.D. Cal. 2006). Therefore,

the Court will not allow recovery for time spent by paralegals on purely clerical tasks such

as creating files and filing documents with the Court.1

 

The Court makes the following reductions due to excessive time spent on the task or

the clerical nature of the task:

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for

Reduction

2/5/07 Create client file 1.00 0 Clerical

3/19/07 Received Proof of

Service of Summons

and Complaint on

WEC; file with Court

.35 0 Clerical

4/10/07 Serve Plaintiffs Early

Neutral Evaluation

Statement on defense

counsel

.30 0 Clerical

4/16/07 Letter to defense

counsel re: confirming

date and time for meet

and confer at the

subject property

.30 .20 Short letter did not

require more than 10

minutes to draft.

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 7 of 9
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

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for

Reduction

8 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

4/16/07 Received Defendant

Rite Aid’s Answer to

Plaintiffs Complaint;

update file with

attorney information

.40 0 Clerical

4/16/07 Calendar meet and

confer between the

parties at the subject

property

.30 .1 No more than a few

minutes required to

calendar event

4/27/07 Fax letter dated

4/27/07 to defense

counsel

.30 0 Clerical

5/7/07 Phone call with

defense counsel for

WEC re: extension of

time to respond to

Plaintiff’s Complaint

.30 .20 Rite Aid’s counsel

recalls that the

telephone call did not

last longer than 10

minutes 

5/14/07 Received Defendant

WEC’s Answer to

Plaintiffs Complaint;

update file

.40 0 Clerical

7/12/07 Instruct Cori to serve

Plaintiffs Initial

Disclosures on

defense counsel

.20 .10 5 minutes sufficient

time to give

instructions re:

service

7/19/07 Instruct Cori to send a

letter to Magistrate

Judge Papas re:

lodging Joint

Discovery Plan

.20 .10 5 minutes sufficient

time to give

instructions re: letter

10/17/07 Left message with

defense counsel re:

status of settlement

negotiations

.20 .10 A 12-minute voice

mail message was

not received and is

unlikely

10/29/07 Gather exhibits to and

file Disclosure of

Plaintiffs Expert,

Ronald Wilson, with

the Court

.60 .30 Same expert witness

disclosure and

exhibits were filed

earlier in another

case. (Def.’s Ex. 14.) 

Time spent filing not

recoverable. 

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 8 of 9
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

Date Description Time

Billed

Time

Allowed

Reason for

Reduction

9 07cv0335 BTM(LSP)

11/26/07 Gather exhibits to and

file Plaintiffs

Acceptance of Offer of

Judgment with the

Court

.30 0 The only exhibit to the

Acceptance of Offer

was the Rule 68 Offer

itself. Time spent

filing not recoverable.

The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. 

Taking into account the reductions, the Court will allow recovery of 6.95 paralegal

hours at the rate of $90, for a total of $625.50.

B. Litigation Expenses and Costs

The Court has reviewed the litigation expenses and costs and finds them to be

reasonable with the exception of (1) the costs that were already awarded in the Order

Taxing Costs filed on January 24, 2008, and (2) the cost of the financial report regarding

defendant, which was unnecessary because Plaintiff’s counsel already has a number of

these reports in connection with other actions filed against Rite Aid.

Subtracting the $350 for filing fees, $123 for service of the summons and complaint,

and $550 for the financial report, the Court awards $2,244.15 for litigation expenses and

costs.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff attorney’s fees in

the amount of $5,316.75 and costs in the amount of $2,244.15, for a total award of

$7,560.90. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00335-BTM-LSP Document 72 Filed 07/09/08 Page 9 of 9