C.G. v. Redding Christian School ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 C.G. (a minor), by and through his No. 2:19-cv-00348-MCE-DMC Parents and Guardians ad Litem, 12 DONALD and WENDY GRAHAM, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER 14 v. 15 REDDING CHRISTIAN SCHOOL and DOES 1-30, inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Through the present action, minor Plaintiff C.G. (“C.G”), by and through his 19 Parents and Guardians ad Litem, Donald Graham and Wendy Graham, (“Plaintiffs”) 20 sought relief from Defendant Redding Christian School (“Redding Christian” or 21 “Defendant”) for allegedly discriminating against Plaintiff when he was expelled due to 22 misbehavior allegedly related to his Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). 23 Federal jurisdiction was premised solely on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 24 1973, which prohibits discrimination against the disabled by any program or activity 25 receiving federal funding. 29 U.S.C.A. § 794.1 26 1 In addition to their federal claim under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs’ Complaint also includes 27 three causes of action sounding solely in state law: two common law claims for negligence and negligent supervision/training, and a statutory cause of action for violation of the California Disabled Persons Act, 28 Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1. 1 According to Plaintiffs, eligible students at Redding Christian received lunches 2 provided by Shasta Union High School District, which participated in the federally-funded 3 National School Lunch Program. Plaintiffs maintained that because Defendant entered 4 into a Food Service Agreement with Shasta Union for that purpose, Redding Christian 5 should be deemed an “indirect recipient” of federal funding for purposes of the 6 Rehabilitation Act even though it was a private school and received no direct monies 7 from the government. 8 On October 9, 2019, Redding Christian filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) 9 brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on grounds that it received 10 no federal funding sufficient to invoke the protections of the Rehabilitation Act. By 11 Memorandum and Order dated March 17, 2020 (ECF No. 27), the Court agreed, granted 12 Defendant’s Motion and accorded Plaintiffs no further leave to amend their federal claim 13 under Section 504. Because the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 14 over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims, it dismissed those additional claims without 15 prejudice and closed the file. 16 Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 31) 17 brought under the Rehabilitation Act and seeking fees in the total amount of $16,228.00. 18 This Court has discretion to award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing party in a 19 civil rights action brought, like this one, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 19 20 U.S.C. § 794a(b). 21 There is no dispute that Redding Christian was the prevailing party in this action. 22 Nonetheless, in order for a prevailing defendant like Redding Christian to recover fees, 23 the Court must find that Plaintiffs’ action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without 24 foundation.” Smith for J.L. v. L.A. Unified Sch Dist., No. CV-16-2358 SS, 2018 WL 25 6136820 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018) at *15 (citing Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 26 779 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015). An action is considered frivolous if it completely 27 lacked any factual foundation for subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Orange 28 Production Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures, Ltd., 792 F.2d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 1986). VASE STOUNVING MININOVA VM VIG 1 | “The fact that a plaintiff may ultimately lose his case is not in itself a sufficient justification 2 | for the assessment of fees.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980). 3 Having adjudicated the matter and carefully considered the positions taken by 4 | both sides in so doing, the Court does not find Plaintiffs’ action to have been frivolous or 5 || utterly without basis. Consequently, in exercising its discretion, it declines to award 6 | attorney’s fees as requested by Defendant Redding Christian. Defendant's Motion (ECF 7 || No. 31) is accordingly DENIED.? 8 IT |S SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: August 26, 2020 Er 10 Wlee AOA, " Marlies 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 □ ? Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court submitted 28 || this matter on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).