FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 26 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTHEE GOLDKORN, No. 14-56730
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:06-cv-02671-BTM-JLB
v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a MEMORANDUM*
Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, PARKER,*** and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Appellant Ruthee Goldkorn appeals the district court’s order granting in part
and denying in part her motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Her appeal follows a
global settlement agreement in fifteen consolidated actions brought under Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act against Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1367,
and we affirm.
We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of
discretion, Native Vill. of Venetie IRA Council v. Alaska, 155 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th
Cir. 1998), and “must affirm unless the district court applied the wrong legal
standard or its findings of fact were illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record,” Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 653 (9th Cir. 2012).
We are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The
district court correctly applied the lodestar method to determine a reasonable fee
award. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Camacho v.
Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987
F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992). The court engaged in a detailed and thorough
review of the record, fully explaining—in a thirty-two-page ruling—its calculation
of the ultimate award. In doing so, the district court both applied the proper legal
standard and provided “a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee
2
award.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. The record demonstrates that the district court
acted well within its authority in setting reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Appellee’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
38 is denied.
Costs awarded to Appellee.
AFFIRMED.
3