N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KATR INA PER O NA, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. TIM E WAR

NER C AB LE, INC ., a c orporation; DOES, 1 through 50, inc lusive , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 16-56897

D.C . No. 5:14-c v-02501-M W F-SP
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 M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 11, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , C LIFTON, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Tim e W arne r C a

ble , Inc . (“ Tim e W arne r” ) a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s judgm e nt, im

p ose d a fte r a

se ve n -day

jury tria l whic h re sulte d in a jury awarding Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e Katrina Pe rona $160,000. Time W arne r a lso a ppe a ls the distric t 

# FIL ED
M AY24 2018 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.c ourt’ s subse que nt orde r awarding M s . Pe rona substa ntia l fe e s a

nd c osts a nd de ny ing Tim e W arne r’ s m otion for judgme nt a s a m atte r of la

wor, a lte rnative ly , pa rtia l ne w tria l. Our a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion re sts on 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we AFFIRM
. Tim e W arne r first c o nte n ds the jury ’ s ve rdic t wa s inc onsiste nt a nd should be
se t a side be c a

use the jury

found both tha

t Tim e W arne r did not fa il to provide
re a s ona ble a c c o m

m odation a

n d tha t it fa ile d to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss. B ut the re is no fa

ta l inc onsiste nc y . C a lifornia la w is c le ar tha

t “ an e m ploy e r’ s fa ilure to prope rly

e nga ge in the proc e ss is sepa ra t e from the fa ilure to re a sona bly
a c c om m odate an e m

ploy e e ’ s disa

bility and give s rise to a

n inde pe n de nt c a

use of
a c tion.” S

w anson v . Morongo Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 181 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 553, 567 (C t. App. 2014). As the distric t c ourt e xpla ine d, the re le va n t tim e pe riod e xte nde d ove r m any
m onths, a nd while Tim e W arne r origina lly provide d a

n a c c om m odation, thejury
c ould, a n d re a s ona

bly did, find it did not do so la te r. Se e id. at

567–68. As we
re c o gniz e d in Snapp v . Unite d Transportation Union , No. 15-35410, 2018 W L 2168653, a

t *4 (9th C ir. M ay

11, 2018), the re c an be no lia bility unde r the fe de ra l Am e ric ans with Disa

b i litie s Ac t for a

fa ilure to e nga ge in the inte ra c tive proc e ss whe n no re a sona

ble a c c om

m odation would ha

ve be e n possible . The jury

he re
2spe c ific a lly

ide ntifie d two re a sona

ble a c c om

m odations Tim e W arne r c ould ha ve provide d ha d the inte ra c t ive proc e s s c ontinue d. Tim e W arne r’ s a rgum e nts tha

t M s. Pe rona suffe re d no da

m a ge s a s a

m atte r of la

w a n d tha t the jury ’ s inte ra c t ive proc e s s finding wa s surplusa ge fa il for the sa m e re a son. The distric t c o urt followe d its obliga

tion to re c onc ile the jury ’ s findings where ve r possible
. Se e N orris v . Sy

sc o C o rp. , 191 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th C ir. 1999). Tim e W arne r a lso c onte nds tha t the jury ve rdic t is c ontra

ry to the e vide nc e be c a use the re wa s e vide nc e the re we re no pa rt-tim e m orning shifts or ope n positions a

va ila ble a s a re sult of its Shift B i d sy ste m , tha t M s . Pe rona

wa s not
e ligiblefor a

pa rt-tim e m orning shift, a

nd tha t M s. Pe rona

wa s re sponsiblefor the bre a kdown in the

inte ra c tive proc e s s. The jury a lso he ard e vide nc e that

M s . Pe rona wa s a m e n a ble to a t le a st a tte m p ting to work a

n a fte rnoon shift, he r m e dic a l
e xpe rt would ha

v e c onside re d

a uthoriz i ng suc h work, a

nd tha t Hum an R e sourc e s M an a g e r Anne Long did no re se arc h to se e if the re we re any ava ila ble
a c c om m odations thec om

pa ny c ould provide . The ve rdic t is not c ontra ry to the
e vide nc e . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it im p ose d attorne y s’ fe e s in the am ount of $964,938. In a warding fe e s the distric t c ourt prope rly c onside re d
and a pplie d the fa c tors se t out in He n sle y v . Ec k e r hart , 461 U.S. 424, 434–36 (1983). The distric t c ourt took into c o nside ra tion thefa c t tha t M s. Pe rona 3pre v a i le d

on only one of the c la im s she pre se nte d to the jury , but re a sona b ly
c onc lude d tha

t M s . Pe rona ’ s unsuc c e s ful c la i m s, sa ve for he r ina de q

uate re st pe riods c la im , a

rose out of thesa

m e se t of c irc um sta

nc e s a s M s. Pe rona ’ s c la im for fa ilure to e nga ge in the inte ra c t ive proc e ss. Se e id . at 435. The distric t c ourt wa s a lso not obliga te d to a pply the Unite d State s Attorne y s’ Offic e Attorne y ’ s Fe e M atrix, form e rly known a s the “

Laffe y m atrix.” Se e Prison Le

gal N e w s v . Sc hw arze ne

gge r , 608 F.3d 446, 454 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e thus c annot fa

ult the distric t c ourt for de c lining to use the Laffe y m atrix.” ). The distric t c ourt ga

ve a de quate re a sons for its de c ision to a pply a lode s ta r
m ultiplie r of 1.3 unde r the c irc um sta nc e s of this c a se . Se e K

e tc hum v . Mose

s , 17 P.3d 735, 741, 744 (C a l. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

4