Laura Alexis v. James Rogers

Opinion

1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED 2 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 6 LAURA ALEXIS, an Individual, No. 17-56481

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00691-CAB- BLM v.

JAMES B. ROGERS; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellants. 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court 9 for the Southern District of California 10 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding 11 12 Submitted August 15, 2018** 13 14 Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

15 James B. Rogers, Gladys Holdings, LLC, and Beeland Interests, Inc. appeal

16 from the district court’s order denying their motion for attorney’s fees. We have

17 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. EEOC

18 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 424 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion

2 for attorney’s fees because the record does not support a finding that plaintiff’s

3 claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. See Rosenman v.

4 Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903,

5 906-09 (Ct. App. 2001) (discussing standard for awarding attorney’s fees under

6 Cal. Gov. Code § 12965(b) and explaining that attorney’s fees should only be

7 awarded to prevailing defendants in “rare cases”).

2 17-56481