Johnson v. Ends In E. Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-06946
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Johnson v. Ends In E. Inc., Judge Davila granted in part and denied in part Johnson’s fee motion, awarding $6,077.50 in fees and $900 in costs.
Scott Johnson received the fee and cost award, and Ends In E. Inc. is responsible for the amounts awarded under the order.
What happened
In Johnson v. Ends In E. Inc., Scott Johnson sued Ends In E. Inc. alleging that it failed to provide accessible parking, dining surfaces, sales counters, and restrooms. The parties settled the underlying claims, leaving the court to decide Johnson’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The court calculated fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It reduced some billed hours and approved hourly rates of $475 for Russell Handy, $350 for Dennis Price and Amanda Seabock, and $250 for Josie Zimmermann. It found no sufficient basis to reject the requested costs.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and denied in part Johnson’s motion. The court awarded $6,077.50 in attorneys’ fees and $900 in costs.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Ends In E. Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-06946
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson filed this lawsuit against Ends In E. Inc. on October 6, 2020. The opinion states that Johnson is a level C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk and has significant manual dexterity impairments. He alleged that Ends In E. Inc. unlawfully failed to provide accessible parking, dining surfaces, sales counters, and restrooms for patrons with disabilities.
The parties notified the court on March 23, 2021, that they had settled the underlying claims. Johnson then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that a plaintiff who enters a legally enforceable settlement is considered a prevailing party for purposes of fee recovery. Ends In E. Inc. argued that the requested fees and costs were duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable.
Fee Analysis
The court used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying the reasonable number of hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The court approved hourly rates of $475 for Russell Handy, $350 for Dennis Price and Amanda Seabock, and $250 for Josie Zimmermann. It relied on comparable fee awards in the Northern District of California and found that the case involved a straightforward disability-access matter.
The court reduced Seabock’s time for identifying responsible parties and researching related requirements from 0.8 hours to 0.5 hours. It reduced Zimmermann’s time for reviewing and signing Johnson’s identification documents from 0.3 hours to 0.1 hours. It otherwise found the billing records adequately supported and reasonably allocated.
The court calculated $4,510 in fees for the work reflected in the billing statement. It added $1,567.50 for Price’s 3.3 hours reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply, using a $475 hourly rate. This produced a total fee award of $6,077.50. The court also awarded the requested $900 in investigator, filing, and service costs, finding no reasonable basis to conclude that the reported expenses were untruthful.
Disposition
The court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Johnson’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It awarded Johnson $6,077.50 in attorneys’ fees and $900 in costs.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.