Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02076/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02076-5/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 - 05cv2076 BEN (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN J. HUBBARD and BARBARA J.

HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv2076 BEN (BLM)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES,

EXPERT FEES, COSTS, AND

OTHER SANCTIONS 

[Dkt. Nos. 78 & 79]

vs.

KAYO OIL COMPANY;

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY dba

CIRCLE K,

Defendant.

Defendants Kayo Oil Company and ConocoPhillips Company (doing business as Circle

K), move for an award of attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs, and other sanctions. Plaintiffs oppose

the motion. Specifically, Defendants seek fees under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the

California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code § 55), and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The motion is

denied. 

Previously, Defendants were granted summary judgment in their favor based upon

evidence that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act had become moot.

Summary judgment based upon Article III considerations such as mootness is not a judgment on

the merits upon which Defendants may seek an award of attorney’s fees under the ADA. Feezor

v. Lopez De Jesus, 439 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (summary judgment based on lack

of standing is not on the merits); Grove v. De la Cruz, 407 F.Supp.2d 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2005)

(installation of grab bars in restaurant restroom mooted ADA claims and court lost jurisdiction). 

Therefore, the Court finds no basis for awarding Defendants attorney’s fees and costs for the

federal ADA claims. 

When federal claims are dismissed before trial, as they were here, a district court should

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims. Scott v. Pasadena Unified

Case 3:05-cv-02076-BEN-BLM Document 95 Filed 06/20/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 05cv2076 BEN (BLM)

School District, 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (where federal claims dismissed for lack of

Article III standing, district court has no discretion and must dismiss all state claims); see also

Reynolds v. County of San Diego, 84 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir 1996) (after summary judgment on

federal claims, case remanded to district court to dismiss state claims without prejudice). That is

the course this Court took in granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its Order

dated December 22, 2006. In other words, there was no ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs’ state law

claims and the Court has not retained jurisdiction to rule on either the state law claims or attorney

fee motions flowing therefrom. 

Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides for the recovery of excess costs from an attorney who

unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings in any single case. Molski v. Mandarin

Touch Restaurant, Case No. 04cv450 ER, slip op. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40260 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9,

2005) (fact that plaintiff attorney treated ADA case like a “mill operation” does not justify award

under § 1927). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ counsel multiplied litigation by filing a baseless

lawsuit and pursuing it until the time Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. At that

time, Plaintiffs withdrew their own papers and did not oppose the motion. Defendants argue that

this action, or inaction, implies that all of the litigation leading up to that point was a vexatious

attempt to extort a settlement. On the other hand, it is also possible that Plaintiffs’ non-opposition

was an effort to reduce unwarranted litigation. The Court made no finding that Plaintiffs’

litigation activity was either meritorious or vexatious, and cannot do so now. On this record, the

Court declines to grant Defendants an award of “excessive costs” under § 1927. 

 Therefore, Defendants’ motion for an award of attorney’s fees, expert fees, costs, and

other sanctions is hereby, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 20, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02076-BEN-BLM Document 95 Filed 06/20/07 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

27

28

- 3 - 05cv2076 BEN (BLM)

Case 3:05-cv-02076-BEN-BLM Document 95 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 3