Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00010/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00010-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

HOLLYNN DELIL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POINT REYES SEASHORE LODGE;

JEFFREY F. HARRIMAN; and THOMAS R.

HARRIMAN,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-00010 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Having considered the submitted papers, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Hollynn Delil is physically disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair. In January

2003, she brought suit against defendant Point Reyes Seashore Lodge in this Court alleging violations

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and several related California statutes. Plaintiff

requested injunctive relief, damages, and fees and costs. 

After some discovery and extensive settlement negotiations, the Court dismissed the case on

March 24, 2004, after the parties reached a settlement. No substantive motions were ever filed by either

party. After the case was dismissed, plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff was

represented chiefly by attorney Sid Cohen, with attorneys Paul Rein and Patricia Barbosa acting as cocounsel. The Court granted fees with regards to Cohen, but denied fees with regards to Rein and

Barbosa. 

Case 3:03-cv-00010-SI Document 95 Filed 02/01/06 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

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff now brings a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the attorneys’ fees award with regards to Rein and Barbosa. 

DISCUSSION

A party must demonstrate one of the following to be granted leave to file a motion for

reconsideration:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists

from that which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for

which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of

reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law

at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of

such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).

Plaintiff asserts that a motion for reconsideration will show a manifest failure by the Court to

consider material facts which were presented to the Court. However, plaintiff’s motion fails to outline

any such failure to consider material facts that would justify revisiting the issue of attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff contends that it was necessary for Cohen to retain two experienced, expensive co-counsel in

this case, disputing the Court’s statement that liability “was not in question” during the litigation. To

the contrary, this case consisted of one long settlement negotiation in which not a single substantive

motion was ever filed and not a single novel issue of law was identified. This was a matter which Mr.

Cohen, with his skills and vast ADA experience (over 100 access cases in 13 years of practice,

according to his papers), could have handled on his own. Plaintiff makes much of the fact that Mr.

Cohen was outnumbered, since the defendant retained a 150-attorney law firm. There are no doubt cases

in which litigation counsel in solo or small firm practices must band together to meet the demands of

litigation, particularly when they face parties represented by large law firms. However, there was

absolutely no showing that this was such a case. Cohen has requested and received compensation for

more than 350 hours of work on this case at a rate of $390 per hour for work performed in 2002 and

$420 per hour for work performed in 2003-2005. This is more than adequate considering the results

obtained in this straightforward case.

Case 3:03-cv-00010-SI Document 95 Filed 02/01/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration (Docket #89).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00010-SI Document 95 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 3