Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01301/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01301-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GYPSIE JONES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RANCHO-SUNRISE HOTEL

CORPORATION dba HOLIDAY INN,

Defendants. 

 CIV-S-05-1301-DFL-DAD

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

On September 13, 2006, plaintiff Gypsie Jones and defendant

Rancho-Sunrise Hotel Corp. dba Holiday Inn (“Rancho”) agreed to a

“baseball-arbitration” model to settle attorney’s fees. Under

this settlement approach, each side agreed to submit a figure for

attorney’s fees with the understanding that the court would be

required to select the proposed figure that was the more 

reasonable. Jones proposed a figure of $17,992.31, and Rancho

proposed a figure of $6,500. The court finds that Rancho’s

proposed figure is more reasonable for the following reasons:

(1) Jones rejected Rancho’s offer to settle on October

14, 2005 by fixing 80 categories of alleged barriers,

which was better than the eventual settlement requiring

Case 2:05-cv-01301-DFL-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Jones to fix only 6 categories and $4,000 in monetary

compensation. See Shott v. Rush-Presbyterian-St.

Luke’s Med. Ctr., 338 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir. 2003).

(2) Jones cannot recover for time her attorneys spent

conducting an initial conflicts check. See,e.g., White

v. GMRI, Inc., No. Civ-S-4-620, slip op. at 5 (E.D.

Cal. 2006).

(3) The time claimed for preparing boilerplate

documents must either be struck or significantly

reduced. See Martinez v. Longs Drug Stores, Inc., No.

Civ-S-3-1843, slip op. at 8 (E.D. Cal. 2005). 

(4) Work done by Alisha Petras, Hubbard’s legal

assistant, is not compensable at the paralegal rate

because she did completed a paralegal program or an

advanced degree, and she does not have a written

declaration from a qualified supervising attorney

stating that she is able to perform paralegal tasks. 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6450 (2006).

(5) The $5,875.62 claimed for Card’s expert report is

too high because:

(a) Card inspected the entire hotel and did not

limit his work to barriers Jones actually

encountered.

(b) Card copied wholesale sections from the CBC

and ADAAG without providing much analysis.

(c) Card hired an associate, who Jones described

Case 2:05-cv-01301-DFL-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

only as “Todd with protoforms” to help with the

report and inspection when it is not clear that

hiring another expert was necessary.

(d) Jones had limited success because she

prevailed on only 6 of the 80 categories of

alleged barriers.

For the reasons above, the court finds that Rancho’s

proposed figure is the more reasonable and, therefore, GRANTS

Jones’s attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6,500.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01301-DFL-DAD Document 33 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3