Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02242/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02242-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Kenneth Gross
Defendant
Scott Johnson
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN KENNETH GROSS and DOES 

1-10, 

 Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:14-02242 WBS KJN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Scott Johnson is a quadriplegic and brought 

this action based on barriers he encountered at Accurate Auto 

Body, which is owned and operated by defendant Brian Kenneth 

Gross. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, 

and the California Disabled Persons Act. The parties settled the 

case and defendant agreed plaintiff was entitled to reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs, as to be determined by the court. 

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 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

2

fees and costs. (Docket No. 24.) Defendant failed to file a 

timely statement of opposition as required by Eastern District 

Local Rule 230(c). The hearing date of June 27, 2016 is 

therefore vacated pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) 

and the court takes plaintiff’s motion under submission without 

oral argument.

1

“The ADA authorizes a court to award attorneys’ fees, 

litigation expenses, and costs to a prevailing party.” Lovell v. 

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1058 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205. The court may also award attorney’s fees to the 

prevailing party under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. 

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 55. A plaintiff prevails “when actual 

relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal 

relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s 

behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” Farrar 

v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1992). 

 

1 Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) requires that an 

opposition be filed not less than fourteen days preceding the 

noticed hearing date. It further provides that “[n]o party will 

be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral 

arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed 

by that party.” In this case, defendant did not file an 

opposition until June 21, 2016--only six days before the hearing 

date. (Def.’s Opp’n (Docket No. 27).) Defendant therefore is 

not entitled to be heard in opposition at the June 27, 2016 

hearing. 

Even if the court were to consider defendant’s untimely 

opposition, it would not change the court’s analysis. Defendant 

argues that plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees of only 

$7,500 because this was a “straightforward” ADA case that settled 

without court time, depositions, or expert discovery and 

defendant’s attorney’s fees were no more than $4,000. (Id. at 

2.) Defendant fails, however, to specifically contest any hours 

reported in plaintiff’s billing summary or the hourly rates 

requested by plaintiff’s counsel. 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 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

3

The court calculates a reasonable amount of attorney’s 

fees by following a two-step process. First, the court 

determines the lodestar calculation--“the number of hours 

reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable 

hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

Second, the court may adjust the lodestar figure “pursuant to a 

variety of factors.” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 

1209 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Kerr v. Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 

526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (enumerating factors on which 

courts may rely in adjusting the lodestar figure). There is a 

strong presumption, however, that the lodestar amount is 

reasonable. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

In determining the size of an appropriate fee award, 

the Supreme Court has emphasized that courts need not “achieve 

auditing perfection” or “become green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox 

v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). Rather, because the 

“essential goal of shifting fees . . . is to do rough justice,” 

the court may “use estimates” or “take into account [its] overall 

sense of a suit” to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee. Id.

A. Lodestar Calculation

1. Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff submitted a billing summary itemizing the 

time spent by attorneys Mark Potter, Phyl Grace, Dennis Price, 

Amanda Lockhart, and Christina Sosa on this case. (Pl.’s Mot. 

for Att’y’s Fees (“Pl.’s Mot.”) Ex. 2 (“Billing Summary”) (Docket 

No. 24-3).) Plaintiff requests a total of $11,050 in attorney’s 

fees for forty-three hours of work. (Id. at 1.) The billing 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 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

4

summary shows Potter billed 21.8 hours, Grace 13.3 hours, Price 1

hour, Lockhart 3.8 hours, and Sosa 3.1 hours. (Id.) 

Of the 21.8 hours claimed by Potter, eight hours are 

estimated time for reviewing the opposition, drafting a reply 

brief, and attending oral argument on the pending motion for 

attorney’s fees and expenses. (Id. at 3.) Given that no reply 

brief was filed and Potter did not have to expend any time 

preparing for or attending oral argument since the court 

determined that oral argument was unnecessary and vacated the 

hearing, the court will reduce Potter’s hours by five. 

Accordingly, the court finds that Potter reasonably expended 16.8 

hours and, together, the plaintiff’s attorneys reasonably 

expended a total of 38 hours. 

2. Reasonable Hourly Rate

The court must multiply the reasonable hours expended 

in this litigation by a reasonable hourly rate to calculate the 

lodestar amount. To determine the reasonableness of the hourly 

rates claimed, the court looks to “the prevailing market rates in 

the relevant community,” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 866, 895 

(1984), “for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable 

skill, experience, and reputation.” Chalmers v. City of Los 

Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 1986). In general, 

“the relevant community is the forum in which the district court 

sits.” Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997). The 

burden is on the party seeking fees “to produce satisfactory 

evidence . . . that the requested rates are in line with those 

prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of 

reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum, 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 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

5

465 U.S. at 895 n.11. 

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks hourly rates of $300 for 

Potter, $250 for Grace, and $150 for Price, Lockhart, and Sosa. 

All of the attorneys practice at the Center for Disability Access 

(“CDA”). Potter is the founder of CDA and a managing partner

with almost twenty years of experience with disability issues, 

Grace is an experienced associate with twenty years of experience 

and nine in disability access litigation, and Price, Lockhart, 

and Sosa are junior associates. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3-5; Potter Decl. 

¶¶ 5-9 (Docket No. 24-2).) In several recent cases this court 

has found the hourly rates of $300 for Potter and $150 for junior 

associates reasonable for disability access cases in the 

Sacramento legal community. See, e.g., Johnson v. Wayside Prop., 

Inc., Civ. No. 2:13-1610 WBS AC, 2014 WL 6634324, at *8 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 21, 2014), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 14-17479 

(9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015); Johnson v. Allied Trailer Supply, Civ. 

No. 2:13-1544 WBS EFB, 2014 WL 1334006, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 

2014). For the reasons enumerated in this court’s prior orders, 

the court finds these same rates reasonable for partner Potter

and junior associates Price, Lockhart, and Sosa in this case. 

With regard to Grace, the court has previously awarded 

an hourly rate of $175 based on her status as an associate and

years of work experience. Id. This hourly rate is on the higher 

end for associates in Sacramento. Id. In these same cases, 

however, the court awarded Raymond Ballister, an associate with 

thirty-one years of experience and ten years exclusive to 

disability access cases, an hourly rate of $260. Wayside 

Property, Inc., 2014 WL 6634324, at *8. This hourly rate is 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 5 of 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

6

comparable to that of a junior partner. Id. Given that Grace 

now has more than twenty years of experience with nine years 

exclusive to disability access cases, the court acknowledges that 

she should receive a rate similar to that of Ballister. (Potter 

Decl. ¶ 6.) The court will therefore grant the requested hourly 

rate of $250 for Grace. See also Johnson v. Kamboj LLC, Civ. No. 

2:14-00561 MCE AC, 2016 WL 1043719, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 

2016) (granting Grace an hourly rate of $250 in a similar ADA 

case). 

Accordingly the lodestar in this case is $9,550, 

calculated as follows:

Potter: 16.8 x $300 = $5,040.00

Grace: 13.3 x $250 = $3,325.00

Price: 1 X $150 = $150.00

Lockhart: 3.8 x $150 = $570.00

Sosa: 3.1 x $150 = $465.00

$9,550.00

Because plaintiff does not seek a multiplier or 

reduction to the lodestar and there is “strong presumption that 

the lodestar amount is reasonable,” Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119 

n.4, the court finds that no further adjustment to the lodestar 

is warranted.

B. Costs

Under the ADA, a court may award litigation expenses 

and costs. Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1058; 42 U.S.C. § 12205. 

Plaintiff seeks $635 in costs. This includes investigation costs 

of $200, a $400 filing fee, and service costs of $35. (Pl.’s 

Mot. at 13; Billing Summary at 1.) Plaintiff did not submit 

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 6 of 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

7

individual billing entries for the investigator. Defendant does

not object to these costs and the court will therefore award them 

to plaintiff. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

attorney’s fees be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part. 

Defendant is directed to pay plaintiff $9,550 in attorney’s fees 

and $635 in costs.

Dated: June 23, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02242-WBS-KJN Document 29 Filed 06/23/16 Page 7 of 7