Rivera v. Crema Coffee Company LLC

Background

Armando Rivera sued Crema Coffee Company LLC doing business as Crema Coffee Roasting Company and Ali Farhang over accessibility barriers at a coffeehouse. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, along with a California Health and Safety Code claim.

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Rivera’s summary judgment motion. It dismissed the ADA claim as moot because the coffeehouse had permanently ceased operations, entered judgment for Rivera on the Unruh Act claim, and Rivera dismissed his remaining Health and Safety Code claim.

Rivera sought $93,903.19 in total fees and costs. That request included $76,230 in attorney’s fees for 199.2 hours of work, $4,932.50 for 12.3 hours spent preparing his reply on the fee motion, and $12,740.69 in litigation costs.

Attorney’s fees

The court ruled that Rivera could not recover fees under the ADA because that claim had been dismissed as moot. It held that he was a prevailing party under the Unruh Act because he succeeded on a significant issue and obtained a judgment that changed the parties’ legal relationship. The court therefore applied California law to determine the reasonable fee award.

The court accepted the hourly rates requested for Rivera’s attorneys and paralegals: $475 for Tanya Moore, $495 for Zachary Best, $175 for Marejka Sacks, $175 for Isaac Medrano, $150 for Whitney Law, and $120 for David Guthrie. The defendants did not challenge the reasonableness of those rates.

The court did, however, reduce the claimed hours. It found that the fee-motion briefing was straightforward and that Rivera’s counsel had reused work from other fee motions, so the briefing should not have required as much time. The court reduced Moore’s time by 7.95 hours, Law’s by 7.15 hours, and Medrano’s by 0.2 hours, leaving 25 hours for the opening and reply briefs combined.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Rivera had unnecessarily prolonged the case by focusing initially on a ramp and raising a buzzer/intercom and curbside-service alternative later. The court found Rivera’s focus on a ramp reasonable in light of the defendants’ own expert report and found that changing his theory based on discovery was not improper. It also noted that the defendants did not accept Rivera’s settlement offers and chose to fully brief summary judgment before closing the coffeehouse.

The court reduced the fee award by 10% because Rivera prevailed on only one of his two Unruh Act theories. He succeeded on the theory involving the lack of an adequate alternative method of access but did not prevail on the van-accessible-parking theory. Because the billing records did not allow the court to separate time spent on the unsuccessful parking theory, the court applied a 10% reduction to the overall fee calculation.

The resulting adjusted attorney’s-fee award was $68,650.88.

Litigation costs

Rivera requested $12,740.69 in costs, consisting of $400 in filing fees, $479.64 in service fees, $6,290 for inspections, $4,041.05 for transcripts, $1,500 in expert fees, and $30 for Court Call expenses.

The court held that the Unruh Act did not authorize the requested out-of-pocket litigation expenses and that Rivera had not adequately explained why the statute or the cited California provision entitled him to those expenses. The court nevertheless awarded costs authorized under federal law: $400 in filing fees, $479.64 in service fees, and $4,041.05 in transcript costs. Those amounts totaled $4,920.69.

The court denied the remaining requests for inspection costs, expert fees, and Court Call expenses. It did not reduce the allowed costs for Rivera’s partial success because the allowed costs would have been incurred regardless.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted in part and denied in part Rivera’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The court awarded $68,650.88 in attorney’s fees and $4,920.69 in litigation costs, for a total award of $73,571.57.