Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02272/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02272-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TONY MARTINEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HOME DEPOT USA, INC. dba HOME 

DEPOT #1003, 

 Defendant. / 

No. Civ. S-04-2272 RRB DAD 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiff Tony Martinez filed an action against defendant 

Home Depot alleging violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state statutes. Home Depot 

defeated all claims against it at summary judgment. It now 

moves for $105,812 in attorneys’ fees and in camera review of 

its billing records. For the following reasons, the court 

DENIES the motions.1 

 

1 Inasmuch as the Court concludes the parties have submitted 

memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support 

of their positions, it further concludes oral argument is 

neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 11
2 

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 

I. 

 On October 24, 2004, Martinez filed a complaint against 

Home Depot, alleging that he encountered forty-two barriers 

during two visits to the store. Home Depot filed a summary 

judgment motion on July 24, 2005. Martinez conceded in his 

papers that twenty-nine of the alleged barriers did not violate 

the ADA. For the remaining thirteen alleged barriers, Martinez 

failed to create a material dispute of fact as to whether they 

violated the ADA. The court declined jurisdiction over the 

remaining state claims. Home Depot now seeks fees under both 

federal and California law. 

II. 

A. ADA Prevailing Party Fees 

 Under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, the court possesses discretion to 

award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing party in an 

ADA action. However, the “policy considerations which support 

the award of fees to a prevailing plaintiff are not present in 

the case of a prevailing defendant.” Christianburg Garment Co. 

v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412, 418-19 

(1978). Fees are awarded to a prevailing defendant only under 

 

matter. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 

F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that if the parties 

provided the district court with complete memoranda of the law 

and evidence in support of their positions, ordinarily oral 

argument would not be required).

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 11
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 

27 

28 

exceptional circumstances, “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s 

action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” 

Summers v. Teichert & Sons, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 

1997). “An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in 

law or in fact, though it need not be brought in bad faith.” 

Peters v. Winco Foods, Inc., 320 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1037 (E.D. Cal. 

2004). “[T]his circuit affords the district court discretion to 

award attorneys fees, even where plaintiff’s action is not 

wholly frivolous. However, the court recognizes that such 

awards will rarely be appropriate where plaintiff has asserted 

significant meritorious claims.” Id. at 1040. 

 To determine whether Martinez asserted significant 

meritorious claims, the court addresses the claims individually 

below, using the same reference numbers as in the summary 

judgment order. 

1. Conceded Claims 

 Martinez conceded Claims 4-5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 22-27, and 30-

33 due to remedial action by Home Depot.2

 Martinez conducted a 

court-approved inspection of the facility on July 24, 2005, 

 

2 In the summary judgment order, the court described Martinez 

as abandoning claims 10, 13, 15, and 22-27 “without 

elaboration.” Upon review, Martinez did generally allege that 

he was conceding the claims due to remedial efforts by Home 

Depot. These general concessions, however, were over-inclusive, 

capturing features Home Depot argues never violated the ADA and 

were not modified. 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 11
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 

following Home Depot’s summary judgment motion. In the papers 

filed after this inspection, Martinez conceded that Home Depot 

remedied the alleged barriers. Home Depot presents no evidence 

that the barriers in question were clearly ADA-compliant when 

the claims were filed. Therefore, the court cannot conclude 

that Martinez’s claims were frivolous. 

 Martinez conceded Claims 35-42 due to lack of standing. 

Although the court has previously held that a male plaintiff 

lacks standing to challenge alleged barriers in a woman’s 

restroom, disagreement exists within the district as to the 

scope of plaintiff’s standing. See Martinez v. Longs Drug 

Stores, Inc., No. Civ. S-03-1843, 2005 WL 2072013, at *4 (E.D. 

Cal. Aug. 25, 2005) (discussing conflicting standing theories 

for ADA claims based on unencountered barriers). Because the 

circuit has not yet resolved this legal issue, the court finds 

that the claims were not frivolous. 

 Martinez conceded Claims 9, 14, 20-21, and 28 with 

insufficient or no elaboration.3

 Martinez’s failure to fully 

 

3 For Claim 9, Home Depot originally claimed that “the access 

aisles already had ‘No Parking’ painted in the aisle.” Motion 

for Summary Judgment (“SJ Mot.”), 8. Martinez responds that 

“Home Depot has indeed . . . painted the words ‘no parking’ in 

all of the access aisles,” but does not specify whether the 

painting occurred before or after his action. Opposition to the 

Motion for Summary Judgment (“SJ Op.”), 13. For Claim 14, Home 

Depot originally claimed that “[t]he surface at the Store 

entrance already had a grade of only approximately 0.1%, well 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 11
5 

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 

explain his reasoning for conceding these claims at such a late 

stage raises significant doubt as to whether they ever had “an 

arguable basis in law or in fact.” Peters, 320 F. Supp. 2d at 

1037. “Given the volume of disabilities litigation filed by 

plaintiff’s counsel [Hubbard], the court must assume a passing 

familiarity with the law in this area.” Id. at 1038. With this 

familiarity should come greater accuracy in identifying features 

as barriers and precision in explaining the reason for conceding 

a claim, particularly at the summary judgment stage. Because 

Hubbard appears to have failed in one or both of these areas for 

the above claims, the court finds them to be “frivolous, 

unreasonable, or without foundation.” Id. at 1037. 

 2. Disputed Claims 

 In Claims 1-3, Martinez alleged that Home Depot violated 

the MUTCD and other state regulations. These state law 

violations, he argued, also constituted violations of the ADA. 

 

within permissible tolerances.” SJ Mot. at 8. Martinez 

responds that he “no longer contests th[is] barrier[].” SJ Op. 

at 15. For Claims 20 and 21, Home Depot originally claimed that 

“[t]he signs leading customers to the restrooms already included 

the ISA symbol” and that the “sign shapes are correct.” SJ Mot. 

at 9. Martinez responds that “Home Depot has made all the 

corrections as identified in Items #20-28,” SJ Op. at 16, but 

does not address the features that Home Depot denied were in 

need of remedying. For Claim 28, Home Depot originally claimed 

that “[t]he family restroom does not require a flip or sliding 

latch as it is single-accommodation.” SJ Mot. at 10. Again, 

Martinez responds generally that Home Depot made a correction, 

SJ Op. at 16, but does not address Home Depot’s claim that no 

remedial action was necessary for the feature. 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 11
6 

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 

It is clearly established law that “compliance with the ADAAG, 

and not another standard, constitutes compliance with the ADA 

requirements.” Sanford v. Del Taco, No. Civ. S-04-2154, 2006 WL 

2669351, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2006). Hubbard has served as 

counsel in prior cases affirming this principle, see, e.g., 

Champman v. Pier 1 Imports, No. Civ. S-04-1339, 2006 WL 1686511, 

*7 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2006), and cites no contrary authority. 

Therefore, the court finds that claims ignoring the presence of 

such clearly established law were frivolous. 

 In Claims 6-7, Martinez alleged that Home Depot failed to 

comply with technical ADAAG sign requirements. His position 

rested on a misinterpretation of the ADAAG, but one with some 

basis in the regulations and surrounding authority. Therefore, 

the court finds that these claims were not frivolous. 

 In Claim 12, Martinez alleged that blocked access aisles 

eliminated a required route of travel. Home Depot successfully 

demonstrated that another route of travel existed. Martinez’s 

factual mistake is excusable, however, given the technical 

nature of the ADAAG’s route of travel requirements. Therefore, 

the court finds that the claim was not frivolous. 

 In Claims 16-18, Martinez alleged that Home Depot’s checkout counters violated various provisions of the ADAAG. Although 

Martinez’s arguments failed, they were based on reasonable 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 11
7 

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 

interpretations of the ADAAG. Therefore, the court finds that 

the claims were not frivolous. 

 In Claim 19, Martinez alleged that Home Depot’s aisles were 

too narrow given the ADAAG’s requirement. Martinez nearly 

presented sufficient evidence to state a claim, making the 

court’s decision a close one. Therefore, the court finds that 

the claim was not frivolous. 

 In Claim 29, Martinez alleged that a toilet paper 

dispenser’s placement violated ADAAG. The argument, based on a 

diagram within the ADAAG appendices that reasonable readers 

could find to be confusing, was flawed but not unreasonable. 

Therefore, the court finds that the claim was not frivolous. 

 In Claim 34, Martinez alleges that the absence of an 

automatically closing door on a restroom stall violated ADAAG. 

The argument misinterpreted a series of technical ADAAG 

requirements. Given their complexity, the court finds that the 

claim was not frivolous. 

 3. Appropriateness of Fees 

 Fees for defendants should not be awarded when “plaintiff 

has asserted significant meritorious claims.” Peters, 320 

F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Here, the court finds eight of Martinez’s 

forty-two claims to be frivolous. The majority of Martinez’s 

ADA claims were either rendered moot by Home Depot’s remedial 

efforts or based upon unsuccessful but reasonable 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 7 of 11
8 

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 

interpretations of applicable facts and law.4 Moreover, despite 

losing all forty-two claims, Home Depot’s remedial efforts 

suggest that Martinez obtained “a significant concession from 

defendants” from their claims. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 431 

(quoting Stanford Daily v. Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680, 684 (N.D. 

Cal. 1974)). Therefore, the court finds that it is reasonable 

for the parties to carry their own costs. The court DENIES the 

motion for ADA fees. 

B. California Disabled Persons Act Fees 

 Home Depot argues that it is entitled to a mandatory award 

of fees under California Civil Code § 55 due to the court’s 

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the CDPA claims. 

California courts engage in a practical analysis to determine 

whether a party prevailed. See Heather Farms Homeowners Ass’n, 

Inc. v. Robinson, 21 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1574 (1994). “[A]lthough 

a defendant who has received the benefit of a voluntary 

dismissal of an action against it is not necessarily a 

 

4 In Peters, the court gave a proportional award of fees to a 

defendant after finding 60% of plaintiff’s claims to be 

frivolous. 320 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. It is often difficult, 

however, to discern what percentage of work went to frivolous 

claims. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). 

Here, given that the frivolous claims arose from the same facts 

and law as the non-frivolous claims, the eight claims upon which 

fees would be awarded may have required only a de minimis amount 

of additional effort. 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 8 of 11
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 

prevailing party, it may be under some circumstances.” Graham 

v. DaimlerChrystler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553, 571-72 (2005). 

The court’s dismissal of Martinez’s state law claims does 

not justify fees for Home Depot under the CDPA. The court 

recently addressed a similar issue in Wilson v. Norbreck LLC. 

No. Civ. S-04-690, 2007 WL 1063050, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. April 9, 

2007) (denying fees for CDPA claims abandoned before trial). 

“[T]he court holds that when a plaintiff brings parallel CDPA 

and ADA claims, the ADA fees provision controls as a matter of 

state law.” Id. at *3. Even under California law, fees would 

be inappropriate because “prevailing defendants cannot receive 

attorney’s fees for defending claims that inextricably overlap 

with other claims when a fee award is inappropriate for the 

defense of the latter.” Id. at *3 (quoting Carver v. Chevron 

U.S.A., Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 498, 506 (2004)). Here, as in 

Wilson, the CDPA claims largely paralleled the ADA claims.5 To 

award fees to Home Depot under the CDPA after denying them under 

the ADA “would compromise the policy underlying the ADA’s 

attorney’s fees provision, which distinguishes between 

 

5

 This case differs from Wilson because Wilson voluntarily 

abandoned his CDPA claims. 2007 WL 1063050, at *2 n.2. Here, 

the court dismissed Martinez’s claims based upon the 

discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The 

practical result, however, was the same. Both plaintiffs lost 

their ADA claims on the merits and failed to bring their CDPA 

claims before the court. 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 9 of 11
10 

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 

prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants.” Wilson, 2007 

WL 1063050, at *3. Therefore, the court DENIES fees under 

California law. 

C. In Camera Review of Billing Records 

Home Depot argues that “it is imperative that [it] maintain 

all privileges with regard to the confidential information 

contained in its detailed billing records” because “Plaintiff 

has appealed the Court’s adjudication of this case.” Ex Parte 

Application, 2. Because the court finds a fee award to be 

inappropriate, it need not reach the issue. However, if the 

court were to grant fees, Home Depot provides no authority to 

support its request, does not detail the privileges it seeks to 

maintain, and does not generally describe the type of 

confidential information allegedly contained in the records. 

Home Depot does not explain why a record of the time expended on 

the litigation is privileged. See In re Weston, 953 F.2d 1390 

(9th Cir. 1992) (unpublished) (upholding denial of in camera 

review of fee records due to inadequate demonstration of 

privilege). Moreover, Home Depot has not demonstrated why it 

was unable to remove privileged information from its records 

while still allowing Martinez enough information to examine the 

time expended on different aspects of the litigation. MGIC 

Indem. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986) (remanding 

fees award because the district court failed to allow the feeCase 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 10 of 11
11 

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 

liable party to inspect records submitted in camera by the 

prevailing party). Martinez cannot contest the reasonableness 

of the requested fees without access to a more detailed record. 

Id. Therefore, the court DENIES the ex parte application. 

III. 

 For the above reasons, the court DENIES the motions for 

fees and for in camera review. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 84 Filed 08/02/07 Page 11 of 11