Trulock

Trulock v. Hotel Victorville

Good Law
92 F. App'x 433
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 5, 2004No. 02-56958; D.C. No. CV-00-10880-GAFCalifornia441 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The Hotel Victorville (“the Hotel”) appeals the district court’s award of $22,250 in attorneys’ fees to John Trulock following the settlement of Trulock’s Americans with Disabilities Act action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We reject the Hotel’s assertion that the district court incorrectly interpreted Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2000), and Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461. U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), to preclude “block billing” objections to fee applications. In its fee order, the district court stated that the use of block billing was one factor that “led the Court to conclude that a reduction in the number of hours charged should be imposed.” We do not believe that the case law required more.

The Hotel was not denied due process of law by the district court’s rejection of some of the Hotel’s proposed reductions to the fee application. The Hotel argues that “reliance on block billing in awarding attorney fees deprives the party ordered to pay those fees of property without due process by denying that party the opportunity to test, explain, or refute the evidence.” While block billing creates…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.