Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses and Remands, But Does Allow Consideration of How Fee-Driven Motivation Impacts Reasonableness of Fee Request.
In the civil rights area, the American Disabilities Act (ADA) does have a mandatory fee-shifting provision in favor of prevailing plaintiffs, although it has the important caveat that only reasonable fees should be awarded. In the next case, the trial court denied fees altogether because it felt that the whole suit was motivated by fees rather than to really remediate a handicap parking violation. That altogether fee denial was reversed, although the motivation factor was not excised as a consideration on the reasonableness of plaintiff’s fee request.
Plaintiff, a disabled, wheelchair-bound individual, sued because a restaurant was apparently one space short of complying with ADA handicap space requirements. Plaintiff won a summary judgment for compliance and $1,000. Plaintiff then sought attorney’s and expert fees of a little under $22,000, with the defendant only arguing as to the reasonableness of the fees request. However, the trial court did go farther, denying fees altogether based on the ambiguity of the compliance order and mainly on its perception that the sole purpose of the action was to “generate fees.”
The Fourth District, Division 3, in a 3-0 panel decision authored by Presiding Justice Sills, reversed in Miller v. Neal, Case No. G041424 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished).
Reason for the reversal? The appellate court could find no authority indicating that fees should be denied across the board simply based on the motivation of plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel in bringing the suit. The panel remanded the case for reconsideration of the fee requests, although it did not prevent the lower court from considering (one way or the other) the motivation factor in the calculus of determining the reasonableness of the requested fees.