Opinion
Civil No. 05-CV-1220-WQH (WMc).
May 15, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Costco's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs [Doc. No. 43]. The Court finds this matter suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1. After considering the arguments raised by the parties in their briefing, the Court now issues the following rulings.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2005, Plaintiff Ronald Wilson filed a Complaint with the Court alleging violations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and several state statutes. Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that he suffers from multiple injuries and trauma to his legs, arms and spine as a result of multiple sports injuries, industrial related injuries, and motorcycle accidents. According to his Complaint, Mr. Wilson also suffers from arthritis and gout, and requires the use of a walking device, wheelchair and mobility-equipped van when traveling in public. Mr. Wilson alleged that he visited the Chula Vista Costco (hereinafter "the Store") on December 26, 2004. Mr. Wilson claimed that while shopping at the Store, he encountered several architectural barriers denying him full and equal enjoyment of the Store in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
In May of 2005, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Costco complaining of unspecified barriers in the Store and demanding that they be removed. Counsel for Costco responded later that month, asking Wilson to specify exactly what barriers he encountered. Costco also offered to investigate and promptly remedy any area or element which was not in compliance with applicable accessability requirements. Plaintiff did not reply to Costco's letter.
Mr. Wilson filed his Complaint on June 14, 2005 and attached several photographs as well as a "Preliminary Accessability Site Report" listing forty alleged violations of federal and state law. The attachment included alleged barriers at the Store that were unrelated to Plaintiff's disability but were provided "as a courtesy to the defendants, so the defendants can avoid inadvertent acts of discrimination against the disabled." See Complaint at 3-4. Plaintiff did not specify which of the alleged violations denied him personally the full and equal enjoyment of the Store.
On October 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed for Summary Judgment on his claims. In his Motion, Plaintiff specifically addressed fourteen alleged barriers in the Store. Plaintiff wholly relied on his own declaration as evidence of the violations. On February 3, 2006, Defendants filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff's lack of standing to assert his claims.
On March 30, 2006, the Court granted Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim in favor of Defendants, based on Plaintiff's lack of standing. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims, and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. Defendants now move for fees.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
While attorney's fees generally are not recoverable, such fees may be awarded if authorized by enforceable contract or by applicable statute. Alyeska Pipeline Services Company v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 257 (1975). The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that "the court in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses and costs." 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
Strong policy considerations support awarding attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs. Christianburg Garment Co. V. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 418 (1978). However, "fees are not awarded as a matter of course to prevailing defendants, and should only be awarded under exceptional circumstances, `upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.'" Summers v. Teichert Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997).
"An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, though it need not be brought in bad faith. Even where plaintiff is unaware at the commencement of the suit that the claim is frivolous, he may be liable for attorneys fees if he continues to litigate after it becomes clear that the action lacks factual substance." Peters v. Winco Foods, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ( internal citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
In ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that he has standing to bring claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act as set forth in Count I of his Complaint. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he has suffered an injury in fact; (2) that the injury is traceable to the challenged action of the Defendant, and (3) that the injury can be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). As part of establishing standing, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that he has suffered or is threatened with a "concrete and particularized" legal harm, coupled with "a sufficient likelihood that [he] will again be wronged in a similar way[.]" See Bird v. Lewis Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002) ( internal citations omitted). By "particularized," it is meant that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n. 1.
In ruling on the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that he has standing to bring claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act as set forth in Count I of his Complaint because Plaintiff did not set forth any evidence regarding his intent to return to the Store as of the date the Complaint was filed, nor did Plaintiff set forth any evidence establishing intent to return to the store at any particular date in the future as of the date of his deposition. See Order dated March 30, 2006. The Court further found that the vast distance between the Plaintiff's residence and the facility, the lack of a past patronage at the Store, the litigation history of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff's failure to reply to Defendants letter requesting specific information about the barriers he encountered at the facility, and the lack of any other evidence indicating that Plaintiff would return to the Chula Vista Costco in particular, each weighed in favor of finding that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit. Id. Accordingly, the Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed Count I of Plaintiff's Complaint. Id.
The Court also found that jurisdiction for claims under the California Disabled Persons Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act were predicated on the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Id.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213 (1995), provides that "the court in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses and costs." 42 U.S.C. § 12205. In ADA cases, "[f]ees are not awarded as a matter of course to prevailing defendants, and should only be awarded under exceptional circumstances, `upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.'" See Summers v. Teichert Son, Inc., 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1997). "An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, though it need not be brought in bad faith." Peters v. Winco Foods, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ( internal citations omitted).
In Harris v. Del Taco, Inc. 2005 WL 3388144, 1(C.D.Cal. 2005), the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal based on a lack of standing did not equate to a finding that a case lacked an arguable basis in fact or law. The court stated:
[T]he Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring his claim. Although Plaintiff's suit failed for lack of standing, the suit did not lack an arguable basis in law or fact.Harris v. Del Taco, Inc. 2005 WL 3388144, 1 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
In their Motion for Fees, Defendants argue that "[c]ontrary to his contentions, Wilson did not visit the Chula vista Costco on December 26, 2004," that Wilson "perjured himself by claiming he had a receipt for purchases that he made at the Chula Vista Costco on December 26," and that Wilson was shopping at the San Marcos Costco on December 26. See Motion at 24. Defendants argue "[b]ecause Wilson's lawsuit was "frivolous, unreasonable and groundless, an award of attorney's fees is justified." See Motion at 9.
Defendants further argue "Plaintiff's bald assertion that he visited the Chula Vista Costco on the date in question does not create an arguable basis in fact or law for his claim in light of all of the inconsistent evidence." Reply at 1. Defendants further argue "[a]s Costco demonstrated in its moving papers, the receipt that Plaintiff testified belonged to him for his purchases on December 26, 2004 belonged instead to Jose Blanco-an individual that Plaintiff does not know." Id.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the receipt confusion could be due to Costco's computer system, argues that there is a "genuine dispute" as to whether Wilson visited the Store on the date in question, and argues that the Court's dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction, and not a judgment on the merits.
In ruling on Summary Judgment, the Court did not rule on whether the receipt produced by Plaintiff actually belonged to Plaintiff. The Court did not rule on the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Rather, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring its ADA claim and dismissed the ADA claim on that basis. The Court then declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the Court found that the suit failed for lack of standing, and did not make a finding that Plaintiff's claims lacked an arguable basis in fact or law. Because Defendants have failed to show that Plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion for Fees.
CONCLUSION ORDER
Defendants have failed to show exceptional circumstances or that Plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Fees.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees [Doc. No. 43] is DENIED.