Roosevelt Johnson v. Hunters Point Brewery, LLC ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, No. 21-16608
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:21-cv-00372-LB
v.
HUNTERS POINT BREWERY, LLC dba MEMORANDUM*
SPEAKEASY ALES & LAGERS et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Roosevelt Johnson seeks review of a district court order denying
his request for attorney’s fees related to fee motion work. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and vacate the district court’s order.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Johnson filed suit against Hunters Point, claiming violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California state law. His suit was successful, and
he filed a motion for attorney’s fees with the district court. Johnson’s legal team
spent a total of 81.2 hours on the case and reported billing $22,8191 in attorney’s
fees, and $8,482 in paralegal fees. Nevertheless, they decided to proactively
discount their attorney’s fees to $15,000 in their initial fee motion, citing the
pandemic as the reason. They also requested $4,815 in paralegal fees related to the
fee motion (“fees-on-fees”).
The district court granted Johnson 90% of the attorney’s fees he requested and
a little over half of the amount he requested for expenses and costs. Roosevelt’s two
attorneys waived their fees incurred in seeking attorney’s fees. Only the paralegal,
Emily O’Donohoe, sought fees-on-fees. The court denied Johnson’s request for
fees-on-fees. The court’s explanation, however, was very cursory—noting only that
the hours O’Donohoe billed for work performed after filing the fee motion were
unreasonable.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the district court erred by: (1) refusing to
award any fees-on-fees without adequate explanation; and (2) creating a “de facto
policy” of denying fees-on-fees requests in ADA cases. We review the district
1
The fee total based on the reported hours and rates actually adds up to $22,235. It
appears that there was an error in the hour and rate calculations, which resulted in
the fees being overstated by $584.
2
court’s award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr.,
L.L.C., 893 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2018).
Our court has held that attorneys can be compensated for the time spent on
obtaining fees in statutory fees cases. See, e.g., In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d
655, 659–60 (9th Cir. 1985). And while the district court retains discretion in
determining the reasonableness of the fee award, this discretion is not absolute.
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court is
required “to provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).
Applying this standard, we hold that the district court’s explanation in this
case for denying the request for fees-on-fees is inadequate. Johnson’s attorneys were
functionally forced to file their fee motion, had voluntarily discounted their fees in
their initial motion, and won 90% of their merits fees requested. But the court
supplied only a two-sentence justification for denying fees-on-fees, asserting
without elaboration that the time O’Donohoe spent on the fee motion was
unreasonable. See Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th Cir.
2013) (declining to give deference to a district court’s “one-sentence explanation”
for denying an award of fees-on-fees).
With respect to Johnson’s alternative claim that the district court established
a “de facto policy” of denying fees-on-fees motions in ADA cases, he cites one case
3
in addition to this case as evidence proving his accusation. But the district court
categorically disavowed any such policy in its order denying Johnson’s motion for
reconsideration, citing two instances where it had awarded fees-on-fees in ADA
cases in recent years. In any event, given our conclusion above, we need not decide
Johnson’s “de facto policy” claim.2
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the court’s decision denying fees-on-
fees and remand the case with instructions that the district court redetermine and
explain its fees-on-fees award consistent with this memorandum disposition and
circuit precedent.
VACATED AND REMANDED.3
2
Johnson also asks this court in its order to direct that “the District Court must award
reasonable paralegal fees for time working on this appeal as requested by Appellant-
Plaintiff . . . .” We do not do so, but instead leave it for the District Court to address
in the first instance on remand any such claim for additional fees, consistent with the
direction we have provided above.
3
Johnson’s motion for judicial notice, ECF No. 12, is granted.
4