Shaw v. Gera

Background

Cecil Eugene Shaw previously sued Nicholas Gera, Sueanne Gera, Hult’s LLC, and others over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act at a restaurant located at 165 Los Gatos Saratoga Road. In November 2016, Shaw entered into a settlement agreement with Nicholas Gera, Sueanne Gera, and Hult’s LLC. The agreement released claims related to access barriers at that location and claims arising from the same or similar operative facts. The earlier case was dismissed with prejudice on December 7, 2016.

In November 2018, Shaw filed this action against Nicholas Gera, Sueanne Gera, and Flights Restaurant Los Gatos, Inc. The complaint again sought disability-related injunctive relief and Unruh Act penalties based on alleged problems with parking, paths of travel, and dining tables at the same property. The opinion states that Hult’s Restaurant had changed its name to Flights Restaurant, that Alexander Hult still owned the restaurant, and that he had been involved in both proceedings as a cross-defendant.

After defense counsel raised the 2016 settlement agreement, Shaw’s counsel argued that the agreement did not apply because the parking space was not compliant and the restaurant had changed names. The court stayed the case and directed the defendant to file a motion to dismiss. Shaw did not timely oppose that motion and later filed a notice of non-opposition. The court dismissed the 2018 case on June 3, 2019. Flights then sought attorneys’ fees.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Flights’ request for judicial notice of eleven publicly available documents, including filings and records from the California Secretary of State. The court found that the documents were not subject to reasonable dispute and that their accuracy could be readily determined from sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned.

Legal Standard for Attorneys’ Fees

The Americans with Disabilities Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party. Under the standard applied by the court, a defendant in a civil-rights action may receive fees when the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. An action is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis; the plaintiff need not have acted in bad faith.

Why the Court Awarded Fees

The court declined to consider Shaw’s opposition because it was filed late and did not comply with the local rules for seeking permission to file late. The court separately found that the 2018 lawsuit lacked a colorable legal basis because the 2016 settlement agreement barred it.

The court rejected the restaurant-name argument. The settlement agreement benefited successors in interest, and the court found that Flights was a successor in interest to Hult’s. The court also found that the restaurant remained essentially the same physical establishment and that the 2018 claims arose from the same issues as the 2016 claims.

The court also rejected the argument concerning the parking space. It noted the defendant’s position that the property had been remediated and that an accessible parking space had been provided directly in front of the restaurant. The court stated that, if the parking work violated the settlement agreement, the proper remedy would have been a claim for breach of that agreement rather than a new lawsuit based on the same operative facts.

The court concluded that the 2018 complaint did not allege new disability violations and was nearly identical to the 2016 complaint. It found that Shaw continued litigating after counsel had been informed that the settlement agreement barred the action. The court therefore found the lawsuit frivolous and held that Flights was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Calculation of Fees

The court used the lodestar method, which generally calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found that defense counsel reasonably spent 26.2 hours defending the lawsuit. It also found the claimed hourly rates reasonable: Christine Long billed $495 per hour for 4.7 hours, totaling $2,326.50, and Isabella Shin billed $305 per hour for 21.5 hours, totaling $6,557.50.

Those amounts totaled $8,884.00. Flights had requested $9,404.05 for defending the case, but the court found that the $520.05 difference was unexplained and did not award the full requested amount. The prevailing-fee request was therefore granted only for $8,884.00.

Shin also requested $2,241.75 for 7.35 hours spent preparing the attorneys’ fee motion. The court found that time reasonable and granted that request. In total, the court granted the request for fees and awarded $11,125.75: $8,884.00 for defending the lawsuit and $2,241.75 for bringing the fee motion. The order granted Flights’ motion for attorneys’ fees in part, and the opinion states that Nicholas and Sueanne Gera were not included in that motion.