Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00984/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00984-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. Carichoff
Defendant
Jessica Lynn Coleman
Defendant
George S. Louie
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GEORGE S. LOUIE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT A. CARICHOFF, et. al.,

Defendants. 

 CIV-S-05-0984-DFL-DAD

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

This suit arises from a discovery dispute between plaintiff

George Louie and defendant Jessica Lynn Coleman in a state court

case. Louie brought this federal suit against Coleman and her

attorney, Robert A. Carichoff (“defendants”), after they sought

to depose him at allegedly non-ADA compliant sites. The court

dismissed this suit on August 10, 2006. Defendants now move for

attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, the ADA’s attorney’s

fees provision. For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS

attorney’s fees in the sum of $ 8,240.48.

I.

After Louie filed suit against Coleman in state court,

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Coleman sought to depose him and noticed the deposition to occur

at the court reporter’s office. Louie, who is disabled, claimed

that he visited the reporter’s office and found that it was not

ADA compliant. Coleman offered to allow Louie to choose another 

location, but Louie refused the “burden” of finding an accessible

place where the deposition could be conducted. Coleman then

noticed the deposition to occur in an office at a large, newly

constructed commercial office building in downtown Sacramento. 

Louie objected again, contending that the new location also was

not ADA compliant.

Following an exchange of heated letters in which both sides

accused each other of bad faith, Coleman filed a motion to compel

Louie’s deposition in state court. Louie responded by

threatening to file a federal ADA suit against defendants if

Coleman did not rescind her motion. Coleman refused. Instead of

raising his concerns with the presiding state court judge, Louie

made good on his threat. Acting pro se, he brought suit against

defendants in federal court, alleging that they had violated the

ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled

Persons Act by seeking to depose him at non-ADA compliant sites.

II.

Finding that the suit “borders on frivolous,” the magistrate

judge recommended dismissing the case. Louie brought his first

two causes of actions under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§

12182(b)(1)(D)(i) and 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), respectively. The

magistrate judge concluded that these claims lacked merit because

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 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

3

defendants did not “operate” the noticed deposition locations,

which § 12182 requires. Louie’s third and fourth causes of

action alleged retaliation and intimidation in violation of Title

V of the ADA. The magistrate judge found that these claims

failed because the actions by defendants were not so threatening

or coercive as to qualify. Finally, the magistrate judge

recommended dismissing Louie’s state law claims, his fifth and

sixth causes of action, because they were predicated on his ADA

claims. On August 10, 2006, the court adopted the magistrate

judge’s recommendations, noting that the case raised comity

concerns by seeking to bring the federal court into a discovery

dispute in a pending state court case.

III.

 The ADA authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to a

prevailing defendant “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action

was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Summers v.

A. Teichert & Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421

(1978). An action is frivolous if “the result is obvious” or the

arguments “are wholly without merit.” McConnell v. Critchlow,

661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1981). “[I]f a plaintiff is found to

have brought or continued such a claim in bad faith, there will

be an even stronger basis for charging him with the attorney’s

fees incurred by the defense.” Christiansburg Garment Co., 434

U.S. at 422.

The court finds this suit frivolous for several reasons. In

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 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

4

his first two causes of action, Louie contends that defendants

violated § 12182 of the ADA by seeking to depose him at a court

reporter’s office and a commercial office building that are

allegedly non-ADA compliant. Louie does not make clear how

defendants discriminated against him merely by seeking to depose

him at these locations and offering to permit him to designate a

different place. Moreover, § 12182 applies only to “any person

who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (2006). Defendants do not

lease or own either site. The argument that defendants

“operated” the sites merely by designating them as the place of

deposition is wholly without merit. For example, an attorney

does not “operate” a restaurant by scheduling a lunch meeting

there.

Similarly, the court finds frivolous Louie’s third and

fourth causes of action. His third cause of action alleges that

defendants retaliated against him by filing a motion to compel. 

His fourth cause of action contends that defendants intimidated

him by noticing his deposition to occur at allegedly non-ADA

compliant locations along with filing a motion to compel. 

However, the noticing depositions and the filing of motions are

procedural rights accorded by our civil litigation system. 

Parties set depositions by noticing them, and, when a dispute

arises, a motion to compel is a perfectly appropriate way to

present the issue to the supervising court for resolution. 

Therefore, the argument that using these procedures is a form of

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 4 of 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 Because Louie’s fifth and sixth causes of actions, his 1

state law claims, are predicated on the ADA claims, the court

also finds that the fifth and sixth claims are frivolous

5

retaliation or intimidation is frivolous, especially, when Louie

declined to identify an alternative location and filed suit

before the state court could address the dispute.

Finally, seeking to inject a federal court in a discovery

dispute in a state court case raises serious comity concerns. 

Louie asked the federal court to interfere in a pending state

court case by enjoining Coleman from exercising recognized civil

litigation procedures.1

For these reasons, the court finds that this action is

frivolous. Moreover, given that Louie made no attempt to resolve

this dispute in state court but attempted to use the federal

litigation to deprive defendants of their procedural rights, the

court finds that Louie filed this suit in bad faith. Therefore,

the court finds that there is “an even stronger basis” to grant

defendants request for attorney’s fees. See Chirstianburg

Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 422.

////

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 5 of 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

 Louie has not challenged the reasonableness of the fees 2

claimed by defendants. Moreover, upon independent review, the

court finds that it was reasonable for Carichoff to: (1) expend

27.10 hours on the motion to dismiss and 10 hours for the motion

for attorney’s fees; (2) bill at $220 per hour; and (3) incur

$78.48 in costs.

6

IV.

Because this suit was wholly without merit defendants’

request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $ 8,240.48 is

GRANTED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00984-JAM-DAD Document 36 Filed 11/16/06 Page 6 of 6