Court Opinion

ID: 20657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:36:24+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:41.118091
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         For the Fifth Circuit

                      ___________________________

                              No. 99-50791
                      ___________________________

JOSE G. LARA, E.J. LOZANO, ALFREDO JUAREZ, G. TIM HERVEY, EARL L.
 HARBECK, VOLAR CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, LUIS ENRIQUE CHEW,
    DESERT ADAPT, MYRA MURILLO, MARGARITA LIGHTBOURNE-HARBECK,

                                                       PlaintiffS-Appellants,

                                       VERSUS

                            CINEMARK USA, INC.,

                                                             Defendant-Appellee.

        ___________________________________________________

            Appeal from the United States District Court
                  For the Western District of Texas
                           (EP-97-CV-502-H)
        ___________________________________________________
                            April 17, 2000

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

      Plaintiffs   appeal    the       district    court’s     denial   of   expert

witness fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which permits district

courts to award “a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation

expenses,   and    costs”   to     a    party     prevailing    under   the   ADA.

Plaintiffs premise this appeal upon the district court’s August 21,

1998 Order granting summary judgment on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Recently, this Court reversed that order and rendered judgment for

  *
   Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Defendant, Cinemark, Inc.    Accordingly, Plaintiffs are not a

prevailing party and may not obtain fees and costs under 42 U.S.C.

§ 12205. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.