N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HEC TOR M ONTANO, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B ONNIE B R

A E C ONVALESC ENT HOSPITAL, INC .,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-56602

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-03462-FM O-AGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, District Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

April 3, 2017 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HHAB R IA, *** Distric t Judge . 

# F IL ED APR 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Vinc e C hha

bria , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.He c tor M onta no brought a

disa bility disc rim ination la

wsuit a ga inst B onnie B ra e C onva le sc e nt Hospital, a skille d nursing fa c ility

at whic h M onta

no is a full-tim e re side nt. He won, a nd the distric t c ourt a

warde d him

$173,158.90 in attorne y s’ fe e s. B o nnie B ra e a ppe a ls the fe e aw ard. W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in c onc luding tha t the 465 hours bille d by

M o nta no’ s la w firm we re re a sona

ble give n the ta sks pe rform e d a nd the re sults obtaine d. Se e W y singe r v . Auto. C

lub of S. C

al. , 157 C a l. App. 4th 413, 430-31 (2007). This is so notwithsta nding thefa c t tha

t B o nnie B ra e ’ s c ounse l bille d fe we r hours tha

n M o nta n o’ s la wy e rs. Se eDe moc raticParty of W ash. State v . Re e d , 388 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [N] um e rous fa c t ors c an c a use the pre v a i ling pa

rty to ha ve spe nt m ore tim e tha

n the losing pa

rty [.] ” ). And B o nnie B ra e ’ s two e x am

ple s of “ e xa gge rate d” billing entrie s we re not c a use for the distric t c ourt to m ake an

a c ross-the -boa

rd re d uc tion— the obje c tions la c k e d spe c ific ity and did not, in a

ny e ve nt, spe ak to theothe r billing entrie s. Se e Roos v . Hone y w e ll Int’l, Inc . , 241 C a l. App. 4th 1472, 1494-95 (2015); Av ik i an v . W TC Fin. C o rp. , 98 C a l. App. 4th 1108, 1119 (2002); se ealso Pre mie r Me d. Mgmt. Sy s., Inc . v . C

al. Ins. Guar. Ass’n , 163 C a l. App. 4th 550, 564 (2008) (“G e ne ra l a rgum e nts tha

t fe e s c la im e d a re e xc e ssive , duplic ative , or unre l ate d do not suffic e . ” ).

22. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in c onc luding tha t the rate s c ha rge d by M onta no’ s la wy e rs— be twe e n $350 a

nd $500 pe r hour—

we re re a s ona ble in light of the

la wy e rs’ tra ining a

nd e xpe rie nc e , a s we ll a s e vide nc e be fore the c ourt showing c om pa ra ble or highe r ra te s ty

p ic a l ly bille d in c ivil rights c a se s in Southe rn C a lifornia . Se ePLC M Grp. v . Dre

x le r , 22 C a l. 4th 1084, 1095- 96 (2000); se e also C

harle bois v . Ange ls Base ball LP , 993 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1116-18 (C .D. C a l. 2012) (in ADA c a se , a pproving ra

t e s be twe e n $375 a

nd $695 for attorne y s in Southe rn C a lifornia with c om pa ra ble y e ars of e xpe rie nc e ). Nor wa s the distric t c ourt re quire d to re duc e the hourly rate s ba se d on the lowe r ra te c ha rge d by B onnie B ra e ’ s la

w y e r, be c a

use de fe nse c ounse l’ s rate is not the be nc hm ark for a re a sona

b le hourly

rate . PLC

M Grp. , 22 C a l. 4th a

t 1095 (“ The re a s ona ble hourly

rate is tha

t pre va iling in the

c om m unity for sim ila

r work.” ). AFFIRM E D .

3