A recent court ruling has overturned an attorney fees award against a lawyer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), marking a significant legal precedent. The complaint was filed by Traci Morgan in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on March 1, 2022, against Zarco Hotels Incorporated.
Morgan, who suffers from Usher Syndrome Type II—a condition that renders her partially deaf and blind—alleged that she was unable to navigate Zarco Hotels' website using screen reader software due to "numerous accessibility design defaults." Represented by the Center for Disability Access, Morgan's complaint included claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Business and Professions Code section 17200. Although no ADA cause of action was directly asserted, the complaint sought permanent injunctive relief to ensure compliance with ADA standards.
Zarco Hotels responded by filing a motion for summary judgment on August 18, 2022, supported by an expert declaration attesting to the website's accessibility. Morgan did not oppose this motion and subsequently dismissed her action on September 26, 2022. Following this dismissal, Zarco Hotels sought attorney fees under ADA section 12205 and other statutes, arguing that Morgan's lawsuit was meritless and part of a pattern of frivolous litigation against small businesses.
The trial court initially found that while Morgan’s case fell within the purview of the ADA due to her request for injunctive relief under its provisions, there was no evidence she acted improperly. However, it ruled that her attorneys should have been aware of the case's deficiencies as early as April 2022. Consequently, it ordered them to pay $55,414.84 in attorney fees incurred after May 1, 2022.
On appeal, however, it was determined that section 12205 of the ADA does not authorize fee awards against a party’s counsel unless explicitly stated by statute or agreed upon by parties involved. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision citing precedents where similar fee-shifting statutes were interpreted not to apply to attorneys unless expressly mentioned.
The appellate judges Chavez, Ashmann-Gerst (Acting P.J.), and Hoffstadt concurred in reversing the judgment.