Witt
Witt v. Bristol Farms
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SALIMA WITT, Case No. 21-cv-00411-BAS-AGS
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES (ECF No. 34)
BRISTOL FARMS,
Defendant. 16 Pending before the Court is Defendant Bristol Farms’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (“Fee Application”). (Fee App., ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff Salima Witt opposes the motion (Opp’n, ECF No. 42) and Defendant replies (Reply, ECF No. 43). For the following reasons, Defendant’s Fee Application is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND1 Defendant owns and operates a grocery store chain with locations throughout California, including a store in the City of Encinitas (“Lazy Acres Encinitas”) that Plaintiff purportedly frequented. (Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1.) On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff entered Lazy Acres Encinitas without a face covering despite Defendant’s policy in effect on the 26 27 1 This Court previously has expounded upon the factual…