Ninth Circuit muses that attorneys’ might have been awarded fees had they asked for sanctions after California ADA “lie”

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s award of attorney fees to the defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after dismissing the plaintiff’s ADA claim for lack of standing.

The plaintiff, Antonio Fernandez, sued the defendants, Malibu Road and Bungalow Lighting and Design, for alleged ADA violations related to the store’s aisle width. The defendants provided evidence that Mr. Fernandez did not actually visit the store during the claimed period in November 2020 when it was only open by appointment due to COVID-19 restrictions. Mr. Fernandez did not provide any evidence showing he visited the store or had knowledge of ADA violations.

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the ADA claim for lack of standing because Mr. Fernandez failed to show he suffered an injury under the ADA. The court then awarded the defendants attorneys’ fees under the ADA’s fee provision, agreeing the lawsuit was frivolous.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit clarified the relationship between the ADA fee provision and the court’s jurisdiction. It stated that a court that dismisses an ADA claim due to lack of standing does not have the authority to award attorneys’ fees under the ADA’s fee provision. However, it pointed out that defendants could still seek fees against plaintiffs who brought frivolous ADA lawsuits using Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permitted sanctions for frivolous legal arguments or unsupported factual contentions.

The filing states:

“Defendants did not seek fees under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any other statute fundamental tenet of the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement, the failure to establish standing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction, without which a court lacks authority to adjudicate the claim.”

The court compared the ADA fee provision with the requirements under Summers v. Teichert & Son, Inc., stating that a court had to find “that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” to award fees to the defendant under the ADA, as quoted from Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). In contrast, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 allowed sanctions when a party’s legal arguments were frivolous or its factual contentions lacked evidentiary support.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees for lack of jurisdiction, without deciding whether Mr. Fernandez’s claim was frivolous. By making this ruling explicit, the court aimed to provide clarity to litigants and courts regarding the ADA’s fee provision and its relationship to the court’s jurisdiction in cases of lack of standing.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.