VOGEL v. LA AMAPOLA INC CMG LLC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-15No. No. 20-55478

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of attorneys' fees was affirmed because Vogel failed to establish he was a prevailing party under California law, having neither demonstrated that his lawsuit motivated the defendants' corrective actions nor obtained the primary relief sought through injunctive relief.

Martin Vogel brought disability rights claims against La Amapola, Inc. and CMG Enterprises, LLC under federal and state law. The parties settled their case, but Vogel requested that the court award him attorneys' fees and costs. The district court denied his request, finding that he did not qualify as a prevailing party under California law because the alleged barriers were removed by a new tenant for reasons unrelated to his lawsuit, and he obtained no injunctive relief requiring the defendants to maintain accessible premises. On appeal, Vogel challenged only the prevailing party determination. The appellate court reviewed the fee denial for abuse of discretion and found no legal error or clearly erroneous factual findings in the district court's analysis.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Vogel qualified as a prevailing party under California Civil Code § 55
Whether Vogel's lawsuit was the catalyst for removing alleged accessibility barriers
Whether Vogel obtained primary relief sought, including injunctive relief

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed the district court's denial of his request for attorneys' fees and costs following a settlement of disability rights claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Martin Vogel sued Defendant-Appellees La Amapola, Inc. and CMG Enterprises, LLC (“Appellees”) for alleged violations of the American with Disabilities Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and Unruh Act. The parties settled their dispute but asked the district court to decide Vogels request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Vogel sought to recover fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and California Civil Code §§ 52(a), 54.3(a), and 55. Vogel now appeals the district courts determination only on the grounds that he was not a prevailing party under California law and therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

“We review a district courts decision to deny attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion.” Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fedn, 277 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2002). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling on a fee motion is based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id.

Here, the district court concluded that Vogel was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code § 55 because he failed to demonstrate how his lawsuit “was the catalyst motivating the defendants to modify their behavior” or achieve “the primary relief sought.” See id. at 1137 (citation omitted). The district courts finding that a new tenant removed the alleged barriers for reasons unrelated to Vogels lawsuit was not clearly erroneous. And the district courts conclusion that Vogel did not obtain the primary relief sought because he failed to obtain any injunctive relief requiring Appellees to keep the premises free of the alleged access barriers was not based on an inaccurate view of the law. See id. (concluding that the plaintiff obtained the primary relief sought when he obtained both money damages and injunctive relief).

To the extent Vogel asserts that he is entitled to fees in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement or some other provision of California law, those arguments are waived because they were not distinctly argued to the district court or in Vogels opening brief. United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Generally, an issue is waived when the appellant does not specifically and distinctly argue the issue in his or her opening brief.”); see also In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We apply a ‘general rule’ against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the district court.”) (quoting Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998)).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. Vogels arguments applying the federal prevailing-party test are misplaced. See Swallow Ranches, Inc. v. Bidart, 525 F.2d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 1975) (“In diversity actions, federal courts are required to follow state law in determining whether to allow attorneys’ fees.”).