Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Minimal Attorney-Fee Award in ADA Case Was Justified
District Court Used 65 Percent Downward Multiplier, Shaved Hourly Amount
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday added to the judicial effort to inhibit the onslaught of lack-of-access lawsuits instituted on behalf of handicapped persons who are repeated plaintiffs in efforts aimed at exacting quick settlements from small businesses, affirming an award of attorney fees and costs in a case of less than $10,000.
Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. authored the opinion for a three-judge panel. It upholds an order by District Court Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California setting attorney fees and costs at $9,851 ($7,896 in fees) in an action brought under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by the Hollywood firm of Hakimi & Shahriari. Smith described the client, James Shayler, as a “serial” litigant under the ADA.
The opinion notes that “the number of ADA cases in the Central District of California (where this case originated) has ballooned from 3 percent of its civil docket to roughly 20 percent in recent years”—a fact first mentioned in a March 8, 2021 opinion in James Shayler v. JPMorgan Chase Bank.
Monetary Damages Barred
In the case that came before Wu, Shayler, who is disabled, sued over a lack of access to a dry cleaning establishment that had been located in a building on Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach owned by 1310 PCH LLC. Shayler sought monetary damages under the state Unruh Act but Wu—in accordance with customary practice among judges of the District Court—declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, which thus restricted Shayler to injunctive relief under the ADA.
In seeking summary judgment, Shayler nonetheless pressed for monetary damages, which are not available under the ADA. The need for an injunction was unclear inasmuch as the defendant had already agreed to make the necessary alteration of the premises to render it ADA-compliant.
An injunction was awarded by Wu on Aug. 16, 2021, and on Oct. 1 of that year, the judge set the attorney fees and costs, rebuffing Shayler’s request for $34,899. He reckoned the amount using a blended rate of $300 for the four attorneys who worked on the case—while the named partners in the firm each sought $495 an hour—and applied a 65% downward multiplier.
Excessive Research
Wu found that the lawyers had “devoted an unreasonable amount of time on several tasks that should have been done more efficiently” given their experience in handling such cases. He said that nine hours claimed for research before filing the complaint was “excessive considering how often Plaintiffs counsel files nearly identical complaints...in scores of ADA cases.”
The judge said it was “unclear” why there was a need to spend four hours “interacting” with the tenant and questioned why 47.8 hours hours—“nearly two-thirds of the recorded fee hours”—were spent on the case after the defendant agreed to resolve the issues “without further litigation or continued expense.”
In arguing for affirmance, PCH’s lawyer, Jeffrey C. Bogert, insisted that the fee request was replete with “exaggeration, duplication, and fluff.”
Shayler’s lawyers, Anoush Hakimi and Kyle Wilson, maintained that that “the District Court abused its discretion at nearly every juncture in determining the fees awarded to Appellant” and, in particular, that its order “falls far short of the ‘clear explanation’ ” that is legally required.
In his opinion upholding the order, Smith declared that “the district court was not required to write the equivalent of a law review article justifying its fee award.”
Decision Not ‘Irrational’
He wrote:
“[W]hile Shayler may be dissatisfied with the district court’s explanations, they are sufficient to undergird its fee award under Ninth Circuit precedent. At bottom, this was a simple, relatively uncontested case. Given the repetitive nature of high-frequency ADA litigation, there was nothing irrational about the district court’s conclusions that, in effect, much of the work here could have been performed by junior associates or even paralegals, or that much of the motion practice in the case was superfluous.”
Smith continued:
“Consequently, the district court did not abuse its broad discretion, particularly in light of the Central District of California’s considerable experience with these kinds of cases.”
The case is Shayler v. 1310 PCH LLC, 21-56130.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company