Love v. Kardooni

Background

Samuel Love, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, sued Reza Kardooni, Cathleen Kardooni, and Redline Motor Sport, LLC. Love alleged that he encountered a lack of accessible parking during an August 2019 visit to “Pit Stop,” a business owned by Redline and operating on land owned by the Kardoonis. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendants moved for summary judgment. Love moved for leave to amend his complaint. In an order filed March 18, 2021, the court granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion and denied Love’s motion to amend. The Clerk entered judgment for defendants on March 19, 2021.

Fee request and legal standards

Defendants sought $95,225 for work on the merits, $17,860 for work seeking fees—sometimes called “fees-on-fees”—and $476.33 in costs. For the ADA claim, defendants relied on 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which permits a court to award a prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. When the prevailing party is a defendant, however, the court may award fees only if the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Defendants also sought fees from Love’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits an award against an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies court proceedings; such a sanction requires a finding of subjective bad faith.

Court’s analysis

The court had previously found that Love’s claim about accessible parking was not legally cognizable because Pit Stop did not provide parking to anyone, and the ADA did not require the business to offer a service it did not otherwise provide.

The court declined to award fees for the period from August 13, 2019, through December 16, 2020. Although defendants argued that Love knew from the beginning that Pit Stop did not provide parking, the court found that Love and his counsel could reasonably have believed that parking was available during that period. The record included photographs showing vehicles near the business and evidence that a marked handicapped parking space appeared to have been installed on what seemed to be the business’s premises. Love and his counsel were not required to immediately accept defendants’ statements that no parking existed.

The court reached a different conclusion for the period beginning December 16, 2020. On that date, the parties stipulated that Pit Stop had provided no parking—accessible or otherwise—at all relevant times. Despite that stipulation, Love continued to assert that defendants violated the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to provide accessible parking. When defendants later moved for summary judgment, Love did not argue that his existing claim had merit and instead sought to add two new claims. The court found that continuing the existing claim after December 16 was unreasonable and without foundation under § 12205, and unreasonable, vexatious, and undertaken in bad faith under § 1927.

The court did not award fees based on either proposed new claim. The first concerned an allegedly inaccessible passenger loading zone. The court found that Love had offered enough evidence about Pit Stop’s vehicle-drop-off and ride-home practice to make an award unwarranted. The second concerned a marked parking spot that Love alleged was inaccessible. Although the court acknowledged that this claim might be frivolous or pursued in bad faith, defendants had not allocated their requested fees to show which work was caused solely by that claim rather than by the nonfrivolous proposed claim. The court therefore denied fees for pursuing the second proposed claim as well.

Amounts awarded

For work on the summary-judgment motion, the court awarded defendants $11,380 in fees and $33.79 in costs, for a total of $11,413.79. The court found the time spent on the motion reasonable. Although defendants had not provided sufficient evidence of prevailing market rates, Love did not challenge the reasonableness of the rates claimed, so the court used those rates.

For fees-on-fees, the court awarded $2,134.27, representing 11.95% of the $17,860 requested, plus $60.04 in costs. The court used the 11.95% figure because the award for work on the merits represented 11.95% of the amount defendants sought for that work.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for fees and costs. As against Love and his attorney, it granted the motion to the extent defendants sought $13,514.27 in fees and $93.83 in costs. It denied the motion in all other respects.