Hernandez v. Caliber Bodyworks LLC

Background

Gerardo Hernandez sued Caliber Bodyworks LLC and Kristina Murti, trustee of the Duane B. Busch Charitable Remainder Unitrust. He alleged that Defendants’ automotive repair facility lacked accessible parking and an accessible passenger loading area, violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Health and Safety Code.

The court previously converted Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. After allowing limited discovery on whether vehicles near the driveway were customer parking, the court granted summary judgment for Defendants and entered judgment in their favor. The court found no genuine dispute that the facility had only a driveway, not parking spaces or a passenger loading zone, and concluded that the facility was not legally required to provide either. The court also rejected Hernandez’s arguments about modifying policies and practices and about the facility’s use of the driveway. The California claims failed for the same reason as the federal disability claim.

Attorneys’ Fees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Defendants sought attorneys’ fees under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although a prevailing defendant may receive fees in exceptional circumstances, the court explained that the plaintiff’s lawsuit generally must have been frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, or brought in bad faith. A claim is not frivolous merely because the plaintiff ultimately loses.

The court found that Hernandez had a reasonable basis for bringing the case. Hernandez alleged that he saw several vehicles parked near the facility entrance and personally believed the area was facility-provided parking. The court noted that even the Google Street View images showed cars parked in front of the facility. Whether the facility provided customer parking was a factual question that could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage and required limited discovery.

The court also found that Hernandez’s alternative argument—that the way Defendants used a paved portion of the driveway as a loading area discriminated against wheelchair users—was not wholly without merit. Although the court rejected that argument on summary judgment, it found no directly controlling Ninth Circuit authority addressing it. The court further noted that the case ended when the factual issue about parking was resolved, leaving no meaningful opportunity for Hernandez to continue litigating after it became clear that his claims lacked merit. Defendants also did not show that the action was filed to obtain a quick settlement, relied on boilerplate pleadings, or was vexatious.

Request for Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Defendants also sought sanctions against Hernandez’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. That statute can require an attorney to pay excess costs and fees caused by unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying court proceedings. The court explained that sanctions require evidence of subjective bad faith, an improper motive, or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duty to the court.

Defendants relied on counsel’s decision to continue the case after being told that the facility had no public parking, changes in Hernandez’s theories, and attempts to expand discovery beyond the court’s order. The court held that these points did not establish bad faith or a violation of a duty to the court. The court had itself authorized supplemental briefing and limited discovery, and disagreement with Hernandez’s legal positions did not prove bad faith or an intent to harass.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. The request for sanctions under Section 1927 was also denied. The order disposed of Docket No. 45.