NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT JOHNSON, No. 20-16387
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:19-cv-08075-EJD
Northern District of California,
v. San Jose
EDWARD K. LI, in individual and
representative capacity as trustee of The Li MEMORANDUM*
Family Trust dated March 10, 1988; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 11, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI,** Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Johnson (Johnson) appeals the district court’s
award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in an action brought under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Rights Act. The district court awarded Johnson $6,157.50 in attorneys’ fees and
$875 in costs, awarding a lower than requested rate for each attorney and reducing
the number of hours billed for some tasks. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
“We review an award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion.”
Armstrong v. Davis, 318 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he district court has
discretion in determining the amount of a fee award[,]” but in exercising that
discretion “[i]t remains important . . . for the district court to provide a concise but
clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424, 437 (1983).
The district court properly applied the lodestar method in this case. See Blum
v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984); Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d
1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). Each time the district court reduced an attorney’s rate
or reduced the number of hours billed for a task, it provided sufficient explanation
and based its decisions on appropriate factors, including the novelty of the legal
questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal service. See Kerr v.
Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (listing factors);
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[T]he Kerr
factors are largely subsumed within the initial calculation of [the lodestar].”),
amended, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987).
2
While a district court should not rely on outdated rates, see Bell v.
Clackamas Cnty., 341 F.3d 858, 869 (9th Cir. 2003), or “hold the line” when
determining the prevailing rate in the district, see Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1115, the
district court here properly considered all evidence submitted by Johnson and
Johnson has not demonstrated that higher fee rates are warranted.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Defendants-Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice of the Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) search results for ADA cases filed by
Johnson in the Northern District of California pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 201(b)(2) is denied as moot. See Dkt. No. 22.
3
Scott Johnson v. Edward Li
Combined Opinion