Molski

MEMORANDUM **

Jarek Molski and Disability Rights, Enforcement, Education Services: Helping You Help Others (collectively referred to as “Molski”) appeal the district court’s denial of state and federal attorneys’ fees and its refusal to sanction Foster Freeze or its counsel. “We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny a motion for attorneys’ fees.” Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir.2007). Legal determinations underlying such decisions are reviewed de novo. Id. A district court’s decision not to grant sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Edgerly v. City & County of S.F., 495 F.3d 645, 661 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment for Foster Freeze on mootness grounds with regard to Molski’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., cause of action. There is thus no “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties” in Molski’s favor on the ADA cause of action. Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 605 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855…