SCOTT JOHNSON V. KARIM MEHRABI, No. 17-15736 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SCOTT JOHNSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15736 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01519-KJM-DB v. MEMORANDUM* KARIM MEHRABI, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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 (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., 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 922, 925-27 (Cal. App. 2006) (an award for attorney’s fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) requires a finding of liability). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15736

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.