Hubbard

I. Background

Plaintiffs’ complaint originally alleged thirty-eight viola- tions of federal and California statutes, many of which were settled in a settlement agreement prior to trial, and others which were abandoned before trial. The district court consid- ered the remaining charges during a two-day bench trial. It found that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish they were denied full and equal enjoyment of the restaurant’s services and facilities. The court entered a judg- ment in defendants’ favor on all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Defendants subsequently moved for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the ADA and Section 55 of the CDPA.

The district court found that plaintiffs’ claims were not frivolous and that fees were not warranted under the ADA, which authorizes fees only on frivolous claims. Section 55 of the CDPA, however, authorizes fees to the “prevailing party.” The district court awarded fees to the defendants under this section.

The principal issue on appeal is whether the award of fees to a prevailing defendant under the CDPA is inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, the ADA. The issue of pre- emption was not raised…