Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2020

Johnson v. Pacific Motor Inn LLC

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:18-cv-06570
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
10
Fee PetitionADA / DisabilityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Pacific Motor Inn LLC, Judge Corley granted in part Johnson’s fee motion, awarding fees and costs after an ADA settlement.

Who this affects

Scott Johnson received a partial award of attorney fees and costs from Pacific Motor Inn LLC and the other defendants after the parties settled the underlying accessibility claims.

What happened

In Johnson v. Pacific Motor Inn LLC, Scott Johnson sued Pacific Motor Inn LLC and others under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging barriers to wheelchair access. The parties settled the claims but agreed to ask the court to decide attorney-fee and cost issues.

Johnson requested $13,267 in fees and costs. The defendants did not dispute that he could recover fees and costs, but argued that compensation should stop when the parties reached an agreement about injunctive relief on March 27, 2019.

Judge Corley granted in part Johnson’s motion. The court reduced the requested hourly rates and hours but awarded $6,937.50 in attorney fees and $900 in costs. The opinion contains inconsistent totals: an earlier statement says $7,837.50, while the conclusion displays $7,837.55.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Pacific Motor Inn LLC · No. 3:18-cv-06570
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
Apr. 8, 2020

Background

Scott Johnson sued Pacific Motor Inn LLC, La Luna Associates, LLC, and Does 1–10 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that accessibility barriers at La Luna Inn—including problems with parking spaces, transaction-counter height, and accessible rooms—denied him full and equal access. The parties later reached a partial settlement covering all issues except attorney fees and costs.

The parties agreed on injunctive relief on March 27, 2019, and eventually settled the remaining statutory-damages issues for $8,000. They agreed to resolve attorney fees and costs through a contested motion. Johnson sought $13,267, consisting of $12,367 in fees for 25.4 hours of work and $900 in costs. The defendants argued that fees should be limited to work performed through March 27, 2019, asserting that Johnson’s counsel should have provided fee information so the case could have been resolved then. Johnson disputed that account.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. The court found that the requested rates for some attorneys were too high for this straightforward case. It awarded $475 per hour for Mark Potter; $350 per hour for Dennis Price, Chris Carson, and Amanda Seabock; and $250 per hour for Bradley Smith, Prathima Price, and Farrell Goodman.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Johnson had unreasonably prolonged the litigation. It found that the record did not support the defendants’ broad claim that Johnson’s counsel had refused for months to provide fee information. The court then reduced the hours for Carson, Goodman, and Prathima Price by 20% because many billing entries were in very small increments and involved tasks such as instructing assistants or reviewing administrative docket entries. It also reduced a claimed eight hours for reviewing the opposition, preparing a reply, and attending oral argument to 5.6 hours because the hearing had been vacated.

The defendants did not object to the $900 in costs, which included $100 for service, a $400 filing fee, and $400 for a private investigator used before the lawsuit. The court found those costs supported by the record and recoverable.

Disposition

The court granted in part Johnson’s motion for attorney fees. It awarded $6,937.50 in attorney fees and $900 in costs. The opinion’s earlier discussion states that the total award was $7,837.50, but its conclusion displays a total of $7,837.55. The order states that it disposes of docket entry 24.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.