Antonio Fernandez v. ROBERTA A. TORRES; CBC RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERTA A. TORRES; CBC
RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55723
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-09424-FMO-SK
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 4, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and BREYER,*** District Judge.
Antonio Fernandez appeals the district court’s order granting in part and
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denying in part his motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, following settlement of his
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil
Rights Act against Roberta Torres and CBC Restaurant Group. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.
The district court abused its discretion when it ignored the time billed by
three of Fernandez’s five attorneys because the case was “overstaffed.” See
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008). While we
agree with the district court that Fernandez’s lawyers overbilled, it was “arbitrary”
to ignore entirely the time billed by three of the five lawyers. Id. at 1113. These
three appear to have performed at least some necessary work, such as drafting a
joint Rule 26 report and a settlement agreement. To the extent that overstaffing
resulted in inefficiencies, the district court should reduce the fee award in
proportion to those inefficiencies, rather than through a “shortcut.” Id.
The district court also abused its discretion in calculating the hours of the
two attorneys whose work it considered. The court provided cogent reasons for its
specific cuts as to various tasks, but its final additional 10% reduction for “general
excessiveness” lacked any justification. Although the court may order a “haircut”
of ten percent with only a “cursory explanation,” Id. at 1112, it must provide a
“specific articulation of [its] reasoning” when ordering a larger reduction.
Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation

-- 2 of 3 --

3
marks omitted). Thus, when a court has already reduced the fee award, it must
provide further explanation to reduce it by another ten percent. See Gonzalez v.
City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2013).
However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the hourly
rates for the two attorneys. They did little to show the court that their requested
rates were “in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services” by
reasonably comparable lawyers. Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1110 (quotation and
citation omitted). Though the court provided relatively little explanation in its
order, this reduction was justified because the case was a simple one and the
attorneys had failed to provide much information. See id.; Moreno, 534 F.3d at
1114.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --