Johnson v. Mai

Background

Scott Johnson sued Chi Mai, Kim Hang Thi Bui, and Hong Thuy Thi Hoang, who the opinion identifies as owners and proprietors of Sunflower Nails & Hair in San Jose, California. Johnson alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants appeared without lawyers, filed an answer, did not appear at the case management conference, and did not meaningfully respond to the court or Johnson’s filings afterward.

The court had previously granted Johnson’s motion for summary judgment on his ADA and Unruh Act claims and entered judgment awarding statutory damages and injunctive relief. Johnson then moved for $20,780 in attorneys’ fees and costs under the ADA and the Unruh Act. The requested amount included $905 in litigation costs. The defendants did not file an opposition, although they submitted a document stating that they did not accept the proceedings. Johnson later asked the court to reduce some estimated hours because the defendants had not filed an opposition and the hearing was vacated.

Attorneys’ Fees

The court used the lodestar method, which generally calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. The court found that Johnson had not shown that his requested rates—ranging from $400 to $650 per hour—were reasonable for this case in the Northern District of California. The court emphasized that Johnson characterized the case as straightforward, that the defendants did not contest the case through most of the litigation, and that counsel did not need specialized expertise to succeed or respond to opposition briefing.

The court set the following reasonable hourly rates: $475 for R. Handy; $350 each for C. Carson, D. Price, A. Seabock, R. Doyle, I. Masanque, and P. Price; and $300 each for S. Gunderson, J. McAllister, B. Smith, and J. Zimmerman.

Johnson sought compensation for 43.1 hours. The court reduced A. Seabock’s time by 0.7 hours because 1.4 hours of billing entries concerned reviewing routine notices and orders, and the court applied a 50-percent reduction to those entries. The court reduced D. Price’s estimated time by 6.6 hours, from 8.0 hours to 1.4 hours, because the defendants filed no opposition and the hearing did not occur. The court found the remaining hours reasonable.

After applying the adjusted rates and hours, the court calculated a lodestar of $11,930 in attorneys’ fees.

Costs

Johnson requested $905 in litigation costs: $400 for an investigator, $400 in filing fees, and $105 for service. The court found these costs reasonable. It explained that the ADA authorizes recovery of litigation expenses and costs, while the Unruh Act does not provide for recovery of out-of-pocket litigation expenses.

Disposition

The court granted in part Johnson’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It ordered that Johnson recover $11,930 in attorneys’ fees and $905 in costs, for a total award of $12,835. The court also vacated the January 28, 2021 hearing and terminated the motion listed as ECF 61.