Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00480-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES SANFORD,

NO. CIV. S 02-0480 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., dba

RITE AID CORPORATION,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On October 12, 2005, this Court awarded Plaintiff, as the

prevailing party in this litigation, attorney’s fees and

litigations expenses in the amount of $21,145.12 pursuant to

both state law and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Thereafter, on October 21, 2005, Plaintiff

filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Court to

revisit its denial of litigation expenses totaling $15,226.62 for

services rendered by Plaintiff’s expert, Joe Card. 

///

Case 2:02-cv-00480-MCE -JFM Document 78 Filed 12/01/05 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

While Plaintiff does not specify the precise basis of his

reconsideration request, he appears to contend that it would be

manifestly unfair to disallow Mr. Card’s expenses because his

conclusions were necessary for purposes of litigating (and

ultimately settling) this matter, despite the fact that Mr.

Card’s alleged report was found insufficient for purposes of

Plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The Court’s disallowance of Mr. Card’s invoice as a

recoverable expense in fact did not hinge solely on Plaintiff’s

ill-taken motion for summary judgment, as the instant motion

would appear to indicate. It is axiomatic that Plaintiff, while

entitled to litigation expenses as the prevailing party, must

establish that such expense were reasonably incurred. 42 U.S.C.

§ 12205. Expenses are unreasonable and properly denied where the

invoices submitted fail to provide specifics about the nature of

the charges incurred. See Webb v. James, 967 F. Supp. 320, 326

(N.D. Ill. 1997).

As indicated in the Court’s October 12, 2005 Order,

Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of $15,226.62 in expenses

paid to Mr. Card is premised on a three line invoice that says

virtually nothing about what Mr. Card did. No hourly rate,

number of hours expended, or tasks performed is detailed despite

the very sizable amount of the invoice. In addition, other than

architectural plans with proposed changes that were prepared by a

completely different entity (Advanced Design Consultants, LLC),

no report authored by Mr. Card was ever submitted–- only a one

page unsubstantiated cost analysis for retrofitting the Rite Aid

site was provided. 

Case 2:02-cv-00480-MCE -JFM Document 78 Filed 12/01/05 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

3

This dearth of information is plainly insufficient to establish

the reasonableness of Mr. Card’s $15,226.62 bill. 

Despite Plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, the

situation here is clearly distinguishable from that encountered

by the Court in White v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Case No. CIV S

03-2402. While Mr. Card’s expenses totaling $4,401.25 were

awarded in that case, two different invoices were provided along

with detailed time entries showing tasks performed and Mr. Card’s

hourly rate. Here, on the other hand, only a three-line

explanation was included in the invoice with no cost breakdown

whatsoever. In addition, unlike the present case, in White the

plaintiff provided a detailed report, with photographs, authored

by Mr. Card himself–- not just architectural plans which on their

face demonstrate that they were prepared by someone else

entirely. Plaintiff’s claim here that he is entitled to recover

more than three times the amount sought in White, with less

supporting documentation and no report, simply cannot be

sustained.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00480-MCE -JFM Document 78 Filed 12/01/05 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 30, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00480-MCE -JFM Document 78 Filed 12/01/05 Page 4 of 4