Scott Johnson v. Karim Mehrabi

708 F. App'x 416
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 28, 2017·No. 17-15736·Unpublished·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Scott Johnson appeals from the district court’s order denying as moot his motion for attorney’s fees in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of Johnson’s motion for attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion because Johnson failed to set forth any basis for such an award. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Vir. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 600, 604-05, 610, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (discussing motions for attorney’s fees brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and explaining that “prevailing party” does not include a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree); Doran v. N. State Grocery, Inc., 137 Cal.App.4th 484, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 922, 925-27 (2006) (an award for attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) requires a finding of liability).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Scott Johnson v. Karim Mehrabi, 708 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2017).

708 F. App'x 416 (Scott Johnson v. Karim Mehrabi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Simpson v. CHS, Inc.
D. Montana, 2022
Ramirez v. Miranda
S.D. California, 2022