NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N
UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

WI L L I A M ROM A

N; et al

. , P l ai n ti f f s - A ppel l an ts ,

v
. M S L CA P I T A L , L L C, DB A Cas a B u en a Cas a L y n n da; L I RI T CH E Y,
Def en dan ts

- A ppel l ees
. No. 19- 55896

D. C. No. 5: 17- cv - 02066- J GB

- S P

M E M O RA

NDUM *

A ppeal f r om th e Un i ted S tates Di s tr i ct Cou r t f or th e Cen

tr al Di s tr i ct of Cal i f

or n i a J es u s G. B er

n al , Di s tr i ct J u d g e, P r es i di n g
S u b m i tted S eptem

ber 3, 2020 * * P as aden a, Cal i f

or n i a
B ef or e: GOUL D an d I K

UT A , Ci r cu i t J u dg es , an d E Z RA , * * * Di s tr i ct J u d g e. 

# FI L E D

S E P 8 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e pan el u

n an i m ou s l y con cl u des th i s cas e i s s u i t abl e f o r d eci s i on wi t h ou t or al ar g u m en t. See F ed. R. A

pp. P

. 34( a) ( 2 )

.

* * * T h e H on or abl e Dav i d A

. E zr a, Un i ted S tates Di s t r i ct J u dg e f

o r th e Di str i ct of H awai i , s i t ti n g by d es i g n ati o n
.Wi l l i am Rom an , Des i r ee A cos ta, Di eg o S an dov al , Ren ee S an d ov al , an d

Cath er i n e P er ez, al on g

wi th cer tai n m i n or ch i l d r en ( col l ecti v el y , t

h e f am i l i es ) , appeal t h e d i s tr i ct cou

r t’ s ju d g m en

t den y i n g t h ei r m o ti on f o r a n ew tr i al an d

m oti on f or attor n ey s ’ f ees
. We h av e j u

r i s di cti on u

n d er 2 8 U

. S .C. § 1291. We
af f i r m
. T h e di s tr i ct cou

r t di d n ot abu s e i ts di s cr eti on i n d en y i n g th e f am i l i es ’ m oti on
f or a n ew tr i al

. See A lfor d v. Haner , 446 F

. 3d 935, 9 36 ( 9th Ci r
. 2006)

. Gi v en th e ju r y ’ s con cl u s i o n th at th e f

am i l i es s u f f er ed n o actu al dam ag es f

r om t h e i n cl u s i on
of th e n ew adu l t s u

per v i s i on pr o v i s i on i n th e l eas e, t h er e was a r eas on abl e bas i s f or
th e j u r y ’ s v er di ct on th e Un

r u h A ct cl ai m , an d i t was n ot con tr ar y to th e cl ear
wei g h t of th e ev i den ce. See United States v. 4. 0 A cr es of L and , 175 F

. 3d 1133,
1139 ( 9th Ci r
. 1999)

. A ccor di n g l y , th e di str i ct cou r t di d n ot er

r i n d en y i n g th e
f am i l i es ’ m oti on f or a n ew tr i al

. M

ols ki v. M

. J. Cable , I

nc. , 481 F

. 3 d 7 24, 729 ( 9 th Ci r
. 2 007)

. B ecau s e t h e f am i l i es f ai l ed to m ake a ti m el y o bjecti o n to th e
di s tr i ct cou

r t’ s Un r u h A ct ju r y i n s tr u cti on , th e cou

r t di d n ot er

r i n h ol d i n g th at th e
f am i l i es f or f ei ted t h e ar g u m en t th at th e cou

r t g av e an er

r on eou s i n s t

r u cti on
. F ed.

R. Ci v
. P

. 51( b ) –( c) ; Z

hang v. A m. Gem Seafoods , I nc. , 339 F

. 3d 1020, 1030 ( 9th
Ci r
. 2003)

.

2T h e di s tr i ct cou r t di d n ot abu s e i ts di s cr eti on i n d en y i n g th e f am i l i es ’ m oti on
f or attor n ey s ’ f ees
. See R ober ts v. City of Honolulu , 938 F

. 3d 1020, 1023 ( 9th Ci r
. 2019)

. T h e di s tr i ct cou

r t appl i ed th e cor

r ect l eg al r

u l e b y con si der i n g “ [ t] h e
di f f er en ce between t

h e am ou n t r ecov er ed an d t

h e dam ag es s ou g h

t

. . . th e

s i g n i f i can ce o f th e l eg al i s s u es o n wh i ch t h e [ f am i l i es ]

. . . pr ev ai l ed

. . . [ an d ]
wh eth er th e [ f

am i l i es ] accom

pl i s h ed s om

e pu bl i c g oal .” M

ahach- W atkins v. Depee , 593 F

. 3d 1054, 1059 ( 9th Ci r
. 2010) ( ci tati on om i tted)

. T h e cou

r t’ s f actu al
f i n di n g th at th e f

am i l i es ’ v i ctor i es r el ated to “ l ar g el y i n si g n i f i can t” l eg al i s s u es
bas ed on “ tech

n i cal , per s e v i o l ati on s ” o f h ou s i n g l aws w as pl au si bl e an d

s u ppor ted by f acts i n th e r ecor d

. T h e di s tr i ct cou r t’ s f i n d i n g th at th e f am i l i es di d

n ot adv an ce an

y pu bl i c g oal was al s o s u

ppor ted by r ecor d ev i den ce th at Ri tch ey
h ad “ v ol u n tar i l y r em edi ed” an

y v i ol ati on s “ y ear s ag o. ” B ecau s e t h e f am i l i es
obtai n ed on l y n om

i n al dam ag es an d di d n o t ach i ev e oth er m ean i n g f u l l eg al or
pu b l i c g oal s , T

homas v. City of T

acoma , w h i ch appl i es wh en a pr ev ai l i n g par ty i s

awar ded m

or e th an n om i n al dam ag es , i s i n appl i cabl e. S ee 410 F

. 3 d 644, 648 ( 9th
Ci r
. 2005)

. AF F I RM ED

3