Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01747-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 )

)

)

VICTORIA HERNANDEZ, )

) 2:04-cv-1747-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

STEVE MARTINEZ, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff seeks $11,000 in attorney fees and $795 in costs. 

(Stewart Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant did not file an opposition to this

motion. L.R. 78-230(c). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging architectural barriers

present on Defendant’s property constituted a violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). 

Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. On February 14, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a Proposed Default Judgment. (Default J. at 1.) On

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

October 3, 2006, Default Judgment was entered against Defendant, which

included an injunction requiring Defendant to make nine modifications

to Defendant’s property, awarded Plaintiff $4,000.00 in compensatory

damages, and entitled Plaintiff to reasonable attorney fees and costs. 

(Default J. at 2-3.) 

DISCUSSION

The prevailing party in an ADA action may recover

“reasonable attorney’s fees, including litigation expenses, and

costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (2006). To determine reasonable attorney

fees, courts in this circuit use the lodestar method and multiply “a

reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended on

the litigation.” Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th

Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $250, declaring this

rate is reasonable in light of his experience. (Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A.

at 5.) Since $250 per hour is a reasonable rate in this district,

Plaintiff’s request is granted. See e.g. White v. GMRI, Inc., 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2059 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2006); Pickern v. Marino’s

Pizza & Italian Rest., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26950 (E.D. Cal. April 9,

2003). 

Plaintiff requests fees for 44 hours. (Pl.’s Mem. of P. &

A. at 4.) Although the majority of the listed tasks are reasonable,

Plaintiff’s counsel also lists a number of tasks that are secretarial

in nature. (Id.) Time spent calendaring dates and filing and serving

documents are included in an attorney’s hourly rate and should not be

billed at an attorney’s rate regardless of who performs the task. See

Loskot v. USA Gas Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29174, at *13 (E.D.

Cal. April 26, 2004) (stating “secretary time for tasks including

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

creating files, sending faxes, making copies, and calendaring dates,

is an overhead expense that goes to an attorney’s hourly rate and

should not be billed to a client separately”); see also Doran v. Corte

Madera Inn Best Western, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2005)

(“Typing and various clerical tasks should be included in attorney

billing as overhead to run the office, not recoverable in a motion for

attorney fees.”). “[The] dollar value [of such non-legal work] is not

enhanced just because a lawyer does it.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 491

U.S. 274, 288 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover for the

tasks involving calendaring dates, serving papers, and filing

documents, all of which can be performed by a secretary. 

The invoice Plaintiff submitted lists a series of tasks

performed for Plaintiff’s case with the total amount of time spent on

the case each day, along with the hourly rate charged. (Pl.’s

Invoice.) This use of block billing is a factor that leads to a

reduction of the number of hours found reasonable in this case. See

Navarro v. General Nutrition Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39726, at

*35-36 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2005) (stating “courts frow[n] on block

billing where discrete and unrelated tasks are lumped into one entry, 

as the practice can make it impossible . . . to determine the

reasonableness of the hours spent on each task” (internal quotations

omitted)). “The form of [P]laintiff’s submission has made it very

difficult and time consuming for the court to determine hours

reasonably expended. Where documentation is lacking in detail, the

court may either request additional documentation or reduce the fee to

a reasonable amount.” White v. J.A. Sutherland, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 40713, at *11 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2005) (citing Fischer v.

SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000)). Rather than

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 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

4

analyze each individual entry on the invoice to determine how much

time counsel expended on secretarial tasks, the stated hours will be

reduced by 3.5 hours and Plaintiff can recover fees for 40.5 hours. 

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Plaintiff is awarded a total of $10,125 in

attorney fees. In addition, Plaintiff recovers $795 in litigation

costs for a total of $10,920.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 4