Ellis
Ellis v. Copperfield Investment & Development Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
In her appeal, Ellis challenges the district court’s calculation of her attorneys’ fee award. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We vacate and remand.
“We review the factual determinations underlying an award of attorneys’ fees for clear error ... and the legal premises a district court uses to determine an award de novo.” Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted).
I.
The district court erred when it failed to apply the twelve “Kerr factors” outlined in Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 , 363 n. 8 (9th Cir.1996) to determine the appropriate fee award. 42 U.S.C. § 12205 permits parties that prevail on claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to recover “reasonable attorney’s fee[s]” in the court’s discretion. Section 12205 is interpreted in concert with other fee shifting statutes such as the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 433 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir.2000). A…