FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 07 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR MONTANO, an individual, No. 15-56602
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cv-03462-FMO-AGR
v.
BONNIE BRAE CONVALESCENT MEMORANDUM*
HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 3, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: BEA and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,*** District Judge.
*
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 Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Hector Montano brought a disability discrimination lawsuit against Bonnie
Brae Convalescent Hospital, a skilled nursing facility at which Montano is a
full-time resident. He won, and the district court awarded him $173,158.90 in
attorneys’ fees. Bonnie Brae appeals the fee award. We affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 465
hours billed by Montano’s law firm were reasonable given the tasks performed and
the results obtained. See Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413,
430-31 (2007). This is so notwithstanding the fact that Bonnie Brae’s counsel
billed fewer hours than Montano’s lawyers. See Democratic Party of Wash. State
v. Reed, 388 F.3d 1281, 1287 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[N]umerous factors can cause the
prevailing party to have spent more time than the losing party[.]”). And Bonnie
Brae’s two examples of “exaggerated” billing entries were not cause for the district
court to make an across-the-board reduction—the objections lacked specificity and
did not, in any event, speak to the other billing entries. See Roos v. Honeywell
Int’l, Inc., 241 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1494-95 (2015); Avikian v. WTC Fin. Corp., 98
Cal. App. 4th 1108, 1119 (2002); see also Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Cal.
Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 163 Cal. App. 4th 550, 564 (2008) (“General arguments that fees
claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.”).
2
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the rates
charged by Montano’s lawyers—between $350 and $500 per hour—were
reasonable in light of the lawyers’ training and experience, as well as evidence
before the court showing comparable or higher rates typically billed in civil rights
cases in Southern California. See PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095-
96 (2000); see also Charlebois v. Angels Baseball LP, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1109,
1116-18 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (in ADA case, approving rates between $375 and $695
for attorneys in Southern California with comparable years of experience). Nor
was the district court required to reduce the hourly rates based on the lower rate
charged by Bonnie Brae’s lawyer, because defense counsel’s rate is not the
benchmark for a reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Grp., 22 Cal. 4th at 1095 (“The
reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”).
AFFIRMED.
3