Alweiss v. City of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 DANIEL ALWEISS, individually and No. 2:21-cv-00784-JAM-DB as a class representative for all 13 similarly situated permit applicants who are class members, 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 15 v. 16 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Daniel Alweiss (“Plaintiff”) sued the City of Sacramento 20 and Planning Department agents Thomas Pace and Teresa Haenggi 21 (collectively “Defendants”) for collecting a fee in connection 22 with Plaintiff’s conditional use permit application. See 23 Compl., ECF No. 1. On December 27, 2021, the Court dismissed 24 Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice and declined 25 supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims. See Order, ECF 26 No. 12. 27 /// 28 /// 1 This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ motion 2 for attorney’s fees. See Def.’s Mot. for Attorney’s Fees 3 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 14. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Opp’n, 4 ECF No. 15. Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 16. For 5 the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion is denied.1 6 I. OPINION 7 A. Attorney’s Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 8 Under the “American Rule,” each party in a lawsuit 9 “ordinarily bears its own attorney’s fees unless there is 10 express statutory authorization to the contrary.” Hensley v. 11 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983) (superseded on other grounds 12 by the Prison Litigation Reform Act). Section 1988 expressly 13 provides that “in any action or proceeding to enforce a 14 provision of [section] 1983 . . . the court, in its discretion, 15 may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a 16 reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1988(b). 18 The applicable standard for granting attorney’s fees under 19 § 1988 depends on whether the prevailing party is the plaintiff 20 or the defendant. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 21 U.S. 412, (1978). An award of fees to a prevailing defendant is 22 properly limited to exceptional circumstances, because federal 23 law seeks to “encourage individuals to seek relief for 24 violations of their civil rights.” Harris v. Maricopa Cty. 25 Super. Ct., 631 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, a 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for April 5, 2022. 1 prevailing defendant may recover attorney’s fees only where “a 2 court finds [the plaintiff’s] claim was frivolous, unreasonable, 3 or groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after 4 it clearly become so.” Christiansburg Garment Co., 434 U.S. at 5 422. “In determining this whether this standard has been met, a 6 district court must assess the claim at the time the complaint 7 was filed, and must avoid post hoc reasoning by concluding that, 8 because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must 9 have been unreasonable or without foundation.” Tutor-Saliba 10 Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th Cir. 2006) 11 (internal citations omitted). “[T]he mere fact that a defendant 12 prevails does not automatically support an award of fees.” 13 Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1402 (9th Cir. 14 1994). 15 After review, the Court finds that Defendants have failed 16 to satisfy the strict governing standard for fee awards to 17 prevailing defendants in a civil rights case. Although 18 Plaintiff’s claims were unsuccessful, they were not “frivolous, 19 unreasonable, or without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment 20 Co., 434 U.S. at 421. Defendants have not proven that 21 exceptional circumstances exist warranting a fee award.2 22 Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to 23 award attorney’s fees under § 1988. 24 II. ORDER 25 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 26 2Even if attorney’s fees were recoverable, the Court notes that 27 Defendants’ request for $31,783.00 for a simple and straightforward motion to dismiss is grossly excessive and any 28 award would have been significantly reduced. nee enn enn en nnn nnn on nnn nnn ne nn OE I 1 Defendants’ motion. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 25, 2022 id Tent, Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28