Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01919/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01919-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 - 09cv1919 WQH (WQH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND HILLS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv1919 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION; SERVICE

EMPLOYEES LOCAL 221; DEQUASIA

GARDNER, Union Organizing Director;

ABDUL SAYID, Union Worksite

Organizer; SHARON-FRANCES

MOORE; ANDY STERN, SEIU

President,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

filed by Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 221 (“SEIU Local 221”),

Dequasia Gardner, Abdul Sayid, and Sharon-Francis Moore (ECF No. 48) and the Motion to

Stay Pending Appeal (ECF No. 59) filed by Plaintiff Roland Hills. 

I. Background

On September 2, 2009, Plaintiff Roland Hills, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by

filing the verified complaint. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff asserted a claim of intentional

discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000 et seq., and § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, against

Defendants Abdul Sayid, Dequasia Gardner, Sharon-Frances Moore, SEIU Local 221, Andy

Case 3:09-cv-01919-WQH-WVG Document 62 Filed 10/31/11 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 - 09cv1919 WQH (WQH)

Stern, and SEIU International. Plaintiff also asserted a second claim for violation of the

National Labor Relation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A), against SEIU Local 221.

On January 18, 2011, Defendants SEIU Local 221, Gardner, Sayid, and Moore filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 31). On that same day, Defendants SEIU

International and Stern filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 32). On August 19,

2011, the Court granted the Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 44). On August 22,

2011, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 45). 

On September 6, 2011, Defendants SEIU Local 221, Dequasia Gardner, Abdul Sayid,

and Sharon-Francis Moore filed a Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (ECF No.

48). 

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 49). 

On September 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees

and Costs. (ECF No. 56). 

On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. (ECF No. 59).

On October 10, 2011, Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 61). 

II. Discussion 

Defendants SEIU Local 221, Gardner, Sayid, and Moore seek $30,438.00 in fees and

$1,204.04 in costs on the grounds that Plaintiff proceeded in bad faith. Defendants contend:

“Although not an attorney, Hills should have known that his claim ... could not prevail in view

of his admissions that he had not provided any evidence to the Defendants to support his

claims of racial discrimination ....” (ECF No. 48-1 at 4). Defendants contend: “It was clear

from the record that Local 221 had done as much as it could by filing and processing a

grievance against the County.” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that in a civil rights case, attorney’s fees should only be awarded to

a defendant only in exceptional circumstances and this case does not present such exceptional

circumstances. Plaintiff contends that policy against awarding a defendant attorney fees

applies with “special force” to him as a pro se plaintiff. (ECF No. 56-1 at 3). Plaintiff

contends that he did not proceed in bad faith and that his action was not frivolous,

Case 3:09-cv-01919-WQH-WVG Document 62 Filed 10/31/11 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

1

 “The effective filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court

to the court of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Masalosalo by

Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Griggs v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982)). In this case, Plaintiff has filed a

Notice of Appeal of the judgment. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to “stay

proceedings and enforcement of this Court’s August 19, 2011 order pending appellate review.”

(ECF No. 59 at 1). The Motion to Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED. 

- 3 - 09cv1919 WQH (WQH)

unreasonable, or without foundation on the grounds that he presented a prima facie case of

racial discrimination. 

Although Plaintiff has appealed judgment in this case, the Court retains jurisdiction over

the issue of attorney’s fees.1

 See Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d

955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983). Common law provides for an award of attorney fees against a party

who proceeds in bad faith. See Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 19 (1978); see also E.E.O.C. v. Bruno's Restaurant, 13 F.3d 285,

287 (9th Cir. 1993).(“[A] district court may in its discretion award attorney’s fees to a

prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous,

unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.”) (citing

Christianburg Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 421-22). “Only in exceptional cases did Congress

intend that defendants be awarded attorney's fees under Title VII.” Mitchell v. Office of Los

Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that

there “strong equitable considerations” to award attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff which

are “wholly absent in the case of a prevailing Title VII defendant.”). When attorney fees are

sought against a pro se party, the court should consider the party’s “ability to recognize the

merits of his or her claims.” Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 621 (9th

Cir. 1987) (“pro se plaintiffs cannot simply be assumed to have the same ability as a plaintiff

represented by counsel to recognize the objective merit (or lack of merit) of a claim.”).

In this case, Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is based on Defendants’ success

on summary judgment. The Court does not find that Plaintiff proceeded in bad faith. The

Court does not find that Plaintiff’s case was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

The Court declines to award attorney’s fees and costs. 

//

Case 3:09-cv-01919-WQH-WVG Document 62 Filed 10/31/11 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 - 09cv1919 WQH (WQH)

III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

filed by Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 221, Dequasia Gardner,

Abdul Sayid, and Sharon-Francis Moore (ECF No. 48) and the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal

(ECF No. 59) filed by Plaintiff Roland Hills are DENIED. 

DATED: October 31, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01919-WQH-WVG Document 62 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 4