Johnson v. Progreso Development, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, sued Progresso Development, LLC and Meza Corporation concerning wheelchair-accessible parking and sales counters at property located at 415 S. King Road in San Jose, California. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The defendants served Johnson with an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They agreed to bring the facility into compliance with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, pay damages, and pay Johnson’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. Johnson then moved for $11,610 in fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and California Civil Code § 52(a). The defendants opposed the requested amount as unreasonable.

Hourly Rates

The court applied the lodestar method, which generally calculates a reasonable fee by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. Johnson requested rates of $650 for Russel Handy, $500 each for Dennis Price and Amanda Seabock, and $450 for Robert Doyle.

The defendants challenged only the $500 rates requested for Price and Seabock. The court accepted Handy’s $650 rate for 0.9 hours and Doyle’s $450 rate for 0.4 hours because the defendants did not challenge them. The court found that Price’s nine years of experience and Seabock’s seven years of experience supported rates higher than those of less-experienced attorneys but did not justify rates higher than some partner rates. It set both of their rates at $350 per hour.

The court also found that the case was straightforward and did not present specialized or difficult challenges. It found the fee evidence and the opinion of Johnson’s fees expert, John O’Connor, of limited or unpersuasive value for determining the rates for Price and Seabock. Recent decisions from other judges in the district supported a $350 hourly rate for similar work.

Hours Billed

Johnson’s counsel reported 21.3 total hours. The court made the following deductions:

- It deducted 1.2 hours of Seabock’s time for clerical work, including communicating with an assistant about administrative and scheduling matters. - It deducted 0.4 hours of Seabock’s time for excessive review of routine court communications. - It made no additional deduction for block billing because the challenged entries generally grouped related tasks or involved time already reduced for clerical work. - It deducted 1 hour from Price’s time for preparing the fee motion and supporting declaration, which substantially used templates from other cases. - It deducted 1 hour that had been allocated for oral argument, because oral argument did not occur.

The court did not further reduce the 5.3 hours spent reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, finding that those tasks were reasonable and involved case-specific work.

Fee and Cost Award

The court found that counsel reasonably billed 16.0 hours: Handy, 0.9 hours at $650 per hour; Seabock, 7.6 hours at $350 per hour; Price, 7.1 hours at $350 per hour; and Doyle, 0.4 hours at $450 per hour. The resulting lodestar was $5,910, and the court found no basis for adjusting that amount.

Johnson also requested $845 in costs: $45 for service, $400 in filing fees, and $400 in investigative costs. The defendants did not oppose those costs, and the court found them reasonable.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Johnson’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It awarded Johnson $5,910 in attorneys’ fees and $845 in costs, totaling $6,755.