NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SANDRA OROZCO; et al,

Defendants-Appellees

 No. 18-15391

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00566-EJD

MEMORANDUM

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 16, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,

District Judge.

After allegedly encountering barriers interfering with his equal access to San 

Jose’s Puerto Azul restaurant, Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Trujillo sued its owners, 

operators, and landlords for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern 

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15391

(ADA), California’s Unruh Act, and provisions of California’s Health and Safety 

Code and Government Code. The parties settled the dispute but asked the district 

court to decide Appellant’s request for attorneys’ fees. Appellant appeals the district 

court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm.

We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of 

discretion. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000). The 

district court’s determinations of fact will not be set aside absent clear error. See id.

“We review the legal principles underlying the fee award de novo.” Moreno v. City 

of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). Whether a district court abuses 

its discretion in deciding a motion for attorneys’ fees depends on how sufficiently 

and reasonably it explained its fee award. See id. “When the district court makes its 

award, it must explain how it came up with the amount. The explanation need not 

be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible.” Id.

Although Plaintiff is correct that the district court erred in its brief comment 

about Appellant’s success in the litigation by not considering the equitable relief 

Appellant obtained, the error was harmless because of the district court’s many

additional detailed explanations justifying its decision. Here, the court’s comment

regarding the extent of Appellant’s success constituted a small aspect of the 

comprehensible explanation justifying the court’s award. In light of “the district 

court’s superior understanding of the litigation,” we defer to its “concise but clear 
3 18-15391

explanation of its reasons.” See Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 

2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)). 

In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award 

fees for Appellant’s late preparation and submission of the mediation statement. 

Appellant submitted the statement after the deadline provided in the district court’s 

local rules, and only Appellant’s attorneys’ fees remained unresolved by the time 

the statement was sent. It was not unreasonable for the court to conclude the 

document’s preparation constituted an unreasonable expenditure of time. 

Finally, the district court’s decision awarding time relating to Appellant’s 

preparation of the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs also did not constitute an 

abuse of discretion. The district court’s explanation was quite thorough; the court 

cogently explained why the motion was excessive considering the straightforward, 

simple nature of the case. See Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111–12. Due to the district 

court’s far greater experience with the record and the deference we owe its extensive 

explanation, we affirm its decision regarding Appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. See Jankey, 537 F.3d at 1132.

AFFIRMED.