Love v. CHSP TRS San Francisco LLC

Background

Samuel Love sued CHSP TRS San Francisco LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that the reservations system on the website for the Le Meridien Hotel did not sufficiently identify specific accessible features. The court previously dismissed Love’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice because he had not adequately alleged that the website failed to describe the accessibility features in sufficient detail. The clerk entered judgment for CHSP on July 26, 2021.

CHSP then sought attorneys’ fees and sanctions. Its fee request totaled $21,076, based on a $550 hourly rate and 38.32 hours. CHSP relied on the ADA’s fee provision, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power to sanction improper conduct. CHSP argued that Love and his counsel routinely filed similar hotel-accessibility lawsuits and that the claims were frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, and brought in bad faith.

ADA Attorneys’ Fees

The court explained that an ADA defendant may receive attorneys’ fees only if the plaintiff’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Losing the case alone does not justify a fee award. The court found that the Ninth Circuit had not squarely interpreted the ADA’s Reservations Rule or the related 2010 Department of Justice guidance. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a claim raising legal questions not clearly resolved by existing precedent is not frivolous merely because the plaintiff ultimately loses.

The court therefore concluded that Love’s complaint was not wholly without merit and denied CHSP’s request for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205. The court also rejected CHSP’s reliance on the number of similar lawsuits filed by Love or his counsel, stating that a list of prior cases alone did not establish that the legal argument was frivolous.

Rule 11 Sanctions

Rule 11 allows sanctions when a filing is legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective and the attorney did not conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry before filing it. CHSP characterized the complaint as a “cookie-cutter complaint” repeating claims that many courts had rejected.

The court held that CHSP had not shown why the complaint lacked a legal or factual basis. CHSP offered no evidence that Love’s counsel failed to investigate the case before filing it or knew that facts contradicted the alleged ADA violations at the hotel. Because the Reservations Rule remained unsettled in the Ninth Circuit, the court could not conclude that the claims were legally or factually baseless. The court denied the request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Section 1927 permits sanctions when an attorney unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies court proceedings. The court noted that this type of sanction generally concerns prolonging litigation after it begins, rather than merely filing the lawsuit.

Here, the court ruled on only one dispositive motion—the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint—and the litigation did not continue afterward. CHSP presented no evidence that Love knew his factual allegations lacked merit but continued pursuing the case. The court therefore denied the request for sanctions under Section 1927.

Inherent Power

A federal court may use its inherent power to sanction conduct such as bad faith, willful disobedience of court orders, harassment, or other willful improper conduct. The court emphasized that this power must be used with restraint.

The court found no evidence that Love’s counsel disobeyed court orders, committed litigation errors, or unduly harassed CHSP in this case. Counsel’s filing of similar legal theories against multiple defendants, even when many cases had similar outcomes, did not establish bad faith or justify sanctions.

Disposition

The court denied CHSP’s motion for attorneys’ fees and/or sanctions.