Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01671-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ho Chan
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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN HO CHAN,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB

ORDER AWARDING FEES AND EXPENSES

Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant John Ho 

Chan (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant’s restaurant in 

Stockton, California did not comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California law (Doc. #1). The 

parties settled the case on January 26, 2016 (Doc. #9). 

Plaintiff moves for an award of fees (Doc. #11), which Defendant 

opposes (Doc. #13).1

///

///

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for July 19, 2016.

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 8
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

I. OPINION

A prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees

and expenses under both the ADA and the Unruh Act. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). “A plaintiff who enters into a 

legally enforceable settlement agreement is considered a 

prevailing party.” Johnson v. Iqbal, 2016 WL 3407773, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2016). To determine a reasonable fee, courts 

calculate “the number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

A. Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff submitted a billing summary itemizing the hours 

expended by attorneys Mark Potter, Phyl Grace, Amanda Lockhart, 

Isabel Masanque, and Christina Sosa. Billing Summary (Doc. #11-

3) at 1. Plaintiff’s motion requests $11,970 in fees and costs, 

but his reply reduces the request to $9,870. Mot. for Attorney

Fees (“Mot.”) at 16; Reply at 5. 

Defendant challenges specific billing entries and the amount 

of attorneys’ fees requested as a whole. Defendant first argues 

that Plaintiff is not entitled to the fees requested because 

“[t]his is an assembly line produced case employing boiler plate 

forms.” Opp. at 2. Defendant also notes that the defense 

attorneys’ fees for litigating the case total slightly over 

$4,000. Id. 

The Court agrees with Defendant that it is unreasonable to 

expend nearly $10,000 worth of work in this non-complex, 

relatively undisputed ADA case, a type of case in which 

Plaintiff’s attorneys’ have extensive experience. First, the 

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 8
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

Court finds it both unreasonable and inefficient to staff five 

attorneys on a case which is very similar to hundreds of other 

cases these attorneys have brought on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Second, nearly half of the billing entries on the Billing Summary 

include the notation “reviewed case file.” If only one or two 

attorneys had worked on this case, rather than five, the 

attorneys would have had to spend less time “review[ing] the case 

file.” The Billing Summary indicates that Ms. Grace and Ms. 

Masanque in particular “reviewed [the] case file” in well over 

half of their respective billing entries. The Court will reduce 

the amount of attorneys’ fees requested because of such 

inefficiencies and unnecessary duplicative work. 

Furthermore, the Court agrees with Defendant that 

Plaintiff’s attorneys largely use boilerplate forms to litigate 

ADA cases. Mr. Potter’s use of boilerplate language in this case 

is reflected in the fact that the “Hourly Rates” section of 

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees states that Mr. Price 

bills at $200 per hour. Mot. at 3. According to the Billing 

Statement, however, Mr. Price never worked on this case. 

Additionally, Plaintiff does not indicate in his motion the 

billing rates of Ms. Sosa and Ms. Masanque, two attorneys who 

actually did work on the case. See id. It appears that Mr. 

Potter forgot to remove Mr. Price’s name from this particular fee 

motion and replace it with Ms. Masanque and Ms. Sosa’s names. 

Plaintiff also left out any information about Ms. Masanque to aid 

the Court in determining a reasonable billing rate for her. 

Accordingly, no fees will be awarded for any work performed by 

Ms. Masanque.

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 8
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

The boilerplate nature of the filings in this case indicate 

that it should have taken Mr. Potter little time to draft the 

complaint, discovery requests, and attorneys’ fees motion. The 

Court thus reduces Mr. Potter’s 5/30/2016 entry for drafting the 

complaint from 0.7 to 0.3 hours, 11/6/2014 entry for drafting 

discovery from 1 hour to 0.5 hours, and 5/17/2016 entry for 

drafting the fee motion from 1.6 to 0.5 hours. 

Next, Defendant specifically contests the following billing 

entries:

1. Mr. Potter’s 5/6/2014 Entry 

Defendant argues that Mr. Potter’s billing entry of 0.9 

hours on 5/6/2014 for “[d]iscussions with client” is unreasonable 

because “the allegations [in the complaint] are word for word 

identical to hundreds of other cases brought by this firm for 

Scott Johnson.” Opp. at 2. Given that the complaint in this 

case is nearly identical to dozens of other complaints brought by 

Plaintiff in this court, the Court finds Defendant’s argument 

meritorious. The Court reduces the 5/6/2014 entry to 0.3 hours. 

2. Mr. Potter’s 5/6/2014 and 5/16/2014 Entries

On 5/6/2014 Mr. Potter billed one hour for visiting the 

site, assessing the allegations, and emailing the investigator 

about photographs. See Billing Summary at 2. On 5/16/2014 Mr. 

Potter billed 0.7 hours for reviewing the investigator’s report 

and speaking to the investigator on the phone. Id. Defendant 

implies that these two billing entries are unreasonable because 

Mr. Potter instructed the investigator on how to take the 

photographs “rather than just taking them himself.” Opp. at 2. 

Defendant also implies that it was unreasonable for Mr. Potter to 

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 8
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

“discuss the photos [of] the area that Mr. Potter had already 

inspected.” Id. at 3. 

As to Mr. Potter’s entry of one hour for a visit to the 

site, Mr. Potter states that he “conducted a site assessment to 

determine whether there was even good cause” for Plaintiff to 

bring his case. Reply at 4. Mr. Potter also states that he did 

not bill any time for his travel from San Diego to Modesto. Id.

at 3. The Court finds that Mr. Potter’s entry of one hour to 

assess the site is reasonable. The Court also finds that it was 

reasonable for Mr. Potter to hire an investigator to take 

pictures and to discuss such pictures with the investigator for 

less than one hour. The Court will award fees to Plaintiff for 

Mr. Potter’s 5/6/2014 and 5/16/2014 billing entries.

3. Discovery Costs 

Next, Defendant argues that the discovery costs in this case 

are unreasonable because “[e]xcept for the names, locations, and 

dates, [the discovery requests] are similar to many other such 

requests and involve no special drafting.” Opp. at 3. The Court 

agrees. Mr. Potter billed one hour for drafting discovery, Ms. 

Lockhart billed 0.5 hours for drafting Plaintiff’s initial 

disclosures, and Ms. Masanque billed 0.5 hours for drafting “RFPD 

set 2.” Billing Summary at 2, 5, 6. The Court finds it 

unreasonable for the Center for Disability Access to have used

three attorneys to make slight edits to discovery requests that 

the Center for Disability Access uses frequently. The Court 

therefore declines to award fees for the 0.5 hours billed by each

Ms. Masanque and Ms. Lockhart for drafting discovery. 

///

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 8
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

4. Ms. Masanque’s Entries for Scheduling of Site 

Inspection

Defendant next challenges Ms. Masanque’s billing entries 

regarding scheduling an expert inspection of the site. Opp. at 

3. Defendant’s counsel notes that he “seeks no charges for 

having to reschedule the inspection, all of which was performed 

by an assistant.” Opp. at 3. Plaintiff argues that “emails and 

communications regarding the scheduling of the site inspection 

are not improper work or unreasonable billing.” Reply at 5. 

Upon review of Ms. Masanque’s billing entries, the Court 

finds that the entries regarding scheduling the site inspection 

could have been completed by an administrative assistant and that

it is not reasonable for Ms. Masanque to bill twelve to thirty 

minutes each time she instructed her assistant to send an email 

rescheduling the site inspection. As noted above, the Court 

further declines to award any fees for work performed by Ms. 

Masanque due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide the necessary 

information regarding her hourly billing rate.

5. Mr. Potter’s Entry for Plaintiff’s Reply

Mr. Potter billed an estimated eight hours for “reviewing 

opposition, drafting reply brief, and attending oral argument.” 

Billing Statement at 2. The reply indicates that “Plaintiff’s 

counsel . . . only expended 2 hours drafting this reply brief.” 

Reply at 5. The Court therefore reduces the hours Mr. Potter 

billed by an additional 6 hours.

B. Reasonable Hourly Rate

The Court must now multiply the reasonable hours expended in 

this litigation by the reasonable hourly rate for each attorney. 

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 8
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

See Johnson v. Gross, 2016 WL 3448247, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 

2016). Courts determine reasonable hourly rates by looking to 

the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Id.

(citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 866, 895 (1984)). “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.” Gross, 

2016 WL 3448247, at *2 (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted). 

Plaintiff seeks hourly rates of $350 for Mr. Potter, $250 

for Ms. Grace, and $200 for Ms. Lockhart, and Ms. Sosa. Mot. at 

3-4; Billing Summary at 2-8. Other judges in the Eastern 

District of California have found the hourly rates of $300 for 

Mr. Potter, $250 for Ms. Grace, and $150 for junior associates 

reasonable for disability access cases in the Sacramento legal 

community. Gross, 2016 WL 3448247, at *2; see also Johnson v. 

Lin, 2016 WL 1267830, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016). 

Accordingly, the attorneys’ fees in this case are awarded as 

follows:

Potter 9.2 x $300 = $2,760.00

Grace 5 x $250 = $1,250.00

Lockhart 4.7 x $150 = $705.00

Sosa 1.3 x $150 = $195.00

= $4,910.00

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Lastly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to recover $620 

in litigation expenses. 

II. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees and expenses is GRANTED. The Court awards 

$5,530.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01671-JAM-EFB Document 16 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 8