NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JOSE TRUJILLO, No. 18-15391
Plaintiff-Appellant D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00566-EJD
v. MEMORANDUM
SANDRA OROZCO; et al,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 16, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,
District Judge.
After allegedly encountering barriers interfering with his equal access to San
Jose’s Puerto Azul restaurant, Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Trujillo sued its owners,
operators, and landlords for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
(ADA), California’s Unruh Act, and provisions of California’s Health and Safety
Code and Government Code. The parties settled the dispute but asked the district
court to decide Appellant’s request for attorneys’ fees. Appellant appeals the district
court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs. We affirm.
We review the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of
discretion. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000). The
district court’s determinations of fact will not be set aside absent clear error. See id.
“We review the legal principles underlying the fee award de novo.” Moreno v. City
of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). Whether a district court abuses
its discretion in deciding a motion for attorneys’ fees depends on how sufficiently
and reasonably it explained its fee award. See id. “When the district court makes its
award, it must explain how it came up with the amount. The explanation need not
be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible.” Id.
Although Plaintiff is correct that the district court erred in its brief comment
about Appellant’s success in the litigation by not considering the equitable relief
Appellant obtained, the error was harmless because of the district court’s many
additional detailed explanations justifying its decision. Here, the court’s comment
regarding the extent of Appellant’s success constituted a small aspect of the
comprehensible explanation justifying the court’s award. In light of “the district
court’s superior understanding of the litigation,” we defer to its “concise but clear
2 18-15391
explanation of its reasons.” See Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir.
2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)).
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award
fees for Appellant’s late preparation and submission of the mediation statement.
Appellant submitted the statement after the deadline provided in the district court’s
local rules, and only Appellant’s attorneys’ fees remained unresolved by the time
the statement was sent. It was not unreasonable for the court to conclude the
document’s preparation constituted an unreasonable expenditure of time.
Finally, the district court’s decision awarding time relating to Appellant’s
preparation of the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs also did not constitute an
abuse of discretion. The district court’s explanation was quite thorough; the court
cogently explained why the motion was excessive considering the straightforward,
simple nature of the case. See Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111–12. Due to the district
court’s far greater experience with the record and the deference we owe its extensive
explanation, we affirm its decision regarding Appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs. See Jankey, 537 F.3d at 1132.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-15391