United States District Court, C.D. California
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Tanya Moore
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Richard Leonard
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JAR-RAMONA PLAZA'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES (Dkt.
119, filed February 22, 2017)
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
March 24, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action
with prejudice. See Dkt. 112. However, some
discussion of the case's procedural history is
appropriate before discussing the instant motion for
requires the use of a wheelchair when traveling in public. On
August 29, 2013, Cecil Shaw filed an action against
defendants JAR-Ramona Plaza, LLC ("JAR"),
Leslie's Poolmart ("Leslie's"), Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. ("Dollar Tree"), Radio Shack
Corporation ("Radio Shack"), Grocery Outlet, Inc.
("Grocery Outlet"), Grocery Outlet Hemet #100 Inc.
("Grocery Outlet #100"), and Mehnga Foods, doing
business as Subway #33424 ("Subway"). Dkt. 1
("Complaint"). In his complaint, plaintiff alleged
claims under certain provisions of (1) the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
12182-83, (2) California's Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code
§ 51, et seq., and (3) California Health and Safety Code
§ 19955. Id. The gravamen of plaintiff s
allegations was that he faced numerous barriers at a shopping
plaza owned by JAR and that those barriers violated laws
protecting those in wheelchairs.
January 7, 2014, JAR filed a motion for summary judgment.
Dkt. 34. On February 10, 2014, JAR's motion for summary
judgment was denied, in part, and granted, in part. Dkt.
Regarding plaintiffs allegations that a door to Radio Shack
was too narrow, Compl. ¶ 10(c)(2), the Court treated
plaintiffs opposition as a request for leave to amend the
complaint, which the Court granted. Dkt. 48.
April 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC described many of the same alleged
obstacles in the original Complaint and added some new
alleged obstacles relating to the Radio Shack entrance at the
shopping plaza. See generally FAC ¶ 10(b).
September 25, 2014, JAR filed a new motion for partial
summary judgment regarding "remaining common area
issues" at the shopping plaza. Dkt. 81. Specifically,
JAR challenged plaintiffs two claims for damages under the
Unruh Act that were predicated on the alleged inadequacy of
the shopping plaza parking lot. JAR did not seek summary
judgment regarding other alleged obstacles at the shopping
plaza. The Court denied JAR's motion, concluding that
there was a material issue of disputed fact regarding whether
the alleged parking issues had existed in September 2011,
when plaintiff claimed to have visited the shopping plaza.
Dkt. 93 at 9.
January 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment with respect to four of the barriers alleged in the
Dkt. 98. On March 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 110.
March 24, 2015, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of
the action with prejudice. Dkt. 112. The parties stipulated
1. This action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice in
2. This dismissal is intended to result in a final decision
from which an appeal may be taken.
3. This dismissal is not the result of a settlement or other