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 that he was a prevailing party under California Civil Code § 55, as his lawsuit did not motivate the defendants' remedial actions and he obtained no injunctive relief.

Martin Vogel brought a disability discrimination lawsuit against La Amapola, Inc. and CMG Enterprises, LLC under federal and state law. The parties settled the case, but the district court still needed to decide whether Vogel qualified as a "prevailing party" entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs. The district court found that Vogel was not a prevailing party under California law because he failed to show that his lawsuit motivated the defendants to change their conduct, and he obtained no injunctive relief requiring them to maintain accessible premises.

On appeal, Vogel challenged the district court's determination that he was not a prevailing party. The appellate court reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion and found no error. The court held that the district court's finding—that a new tenant removed the barriers for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit—was supported by the record, and its conclusion that Vogel failed to obtain the primary relief sought (injunctive relief) was legally sound. Additionally, the court found that Vogel waived any alternative arguments about attorneys' fees by not raising them clearly in the district court or in his opening brief on appeal.

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

Key issues

Whether plaintiff qualifies as prevailing party under California law for attorneys' fees
Whether lawsuit was catalyst for defendants' compliance with accessibility requirements
Whether plaintiff obtained primary relief sought (injunctive relief)
Waiver of arguments not distinctly raised in district court or opening brief

Procedural posture

Vogel appealed the district court's denial of his request for attorneys' fees and costs following settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit.

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.”).