Tavarez v. Extract Labs Inc.

Background

Victoriano Tavarez brought a proposed class action against Extract Labs, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City law. He alleged that Extract’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired people. The court previously granted Extract’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the dispute was moot because Extract had significantly redesigned its website to comply with the relevant laws. The court also struck an expert declaration submitted by Tavarez because it was unreliable and lacked an adequate foundation.

Extract then moved for $32,797.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,012.28 in costs. The motion relied on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s provision allowing a court to award reasonable fees and litigation expenses to a prevailing party.

Attorney’s Fees

The court held that Extract was a prevailing party even though the earlier dismissal was without prejudice and was based on mootness rather than a decision on the merits. The court reasoned that Extract had obtained a final judgment that materially changed the legal relationship between the parties by ending Tavarez’s challenge to the website.

But a prevailing defendant in a civil-rights case may receive attorney’s fees only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or when the plaintiff continued litigating after it clearly became so. The court found that standard was not met. It rejected Extract’s arguments concerning Tavarez’s refusal to accept a waiver of service, his unsupported settlement demand, and his decision to continue litigating after Extract said the website had been fixed. The court also noted that Tavarez had submitted an expert declaration containing specific and plausible details about continuing website problems, even though the court ultimately struck that declaration for evidentiary deficiencies.

The court therefore denied Extract’s request for attorney’s fees.

Costs

The court explained that costs are governed by a different standard from attorney’s fees and are generally allowed to a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), subject to the district court’s discretion. Local Civil Rule 54.1 requires a party seeking costs to file a notice of taxation of costs with the Clerk within 30 days after final judgment, unless the court extends the deadline for good cause.

The court found good cause to extend Extract’s deadline because Extract’s motion had timely made clear that it intended to seek costs. The court deferred a decision on the $1,012.28 costs request and permitted Extract to pursue the Local Civil Rule 54.1 procedure. The deadline was extended to 30 days after issuance of the opinion and order.

Disposition

The court ordered that Extract’s motion was DENIED IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART. Specifically, the request for $32,797.50 in attorney’s fees was denied, and the request for $1,012.28 in costs was deferred. Judge J. PAUL OETKEN also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.