This Was A 2-1 Decision, With The Dissent Indicating Plaintiff Did Not Properly Tee This Issue Up Before The District Judge.
The Ninth Circuit, in the 2-1 decision of Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Property, LLC, No. 21-55673 (9th Cir. July 1, 2022) (published), decided that where an ADA plaintiff indicates that the litigant will file an attorney’s fees motion, such an indication signals that the litigant is opting out of having default judgment attorney’s fees determined by a local C.D. California district court schedule and wants to request additional fees through a noticed motion. The district judge sua sponte only entered the scheduled fees of $1,000 in connection with the default judgment, with the Ninth Circuit vacating the fee award and remanding so that plaintiff’s increased fee request could be entertained. The dissent believed that plaintiff’s indication was not clear enough to override what the district judge did in the absence of having actual proof of what increased fees were being sought. The majority opinion also found that the local rule allowing fee motions to be filed 14 days after entry of a judgment took precedence over the default judgment local rule stating that the increased fee request had to be filed immediately upon entry of the default judgment.
There actually are some open issues left undecided by both the majority and dissenting opinions. The first issue is whether the local rule applies at all where only nonmonetary (injunctive) relief is awarded under a default judgment. The second is whether an attorney’s fees award under the Central District fee schedule is a reasonable fee under the ADA. The third issue is whether the ADA mandates the use of a lodestar method in awarding fees. Stay tuned for some more jurisprudence down the line!
Comments