William Roman v. Msl Capital, LLC ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEP 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM ROMAN; et al., No. 19-55896
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No.
5:17-cv-02066-JGB-SP
v.
MSL CAPITAL, LLC, DBA Casa Buena MEMORANDUM*
Casa Lynnda; LI RITCHEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 3, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
William Roman, Desiree Acosta, Diego Sandoval, Renee Sandoval, and
Catherine Perez, along with certain minor children (collectively, the families),
appeal the district court’s judgment denying their motion for a new trial and
motion for attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the families’ motion
for a new trial. See Alford v. Haner, 446 F.3d 935, 936 (9th Cir. 2006). Given the
jury’s conclusion that the families suffered no actual damages from the inclusion
of the new adult supervision provision in the lease, there was a reasonable basis for
the jury’s verdict on the Unruh Act claim, and it was not contrary to the clear
weight of the evidence. See United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133,
1139 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the
families’ motion for a new trial. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729
(9th Cir. 2007). Because the families failed to make a timely objection to the
district court’s Unruh Act jury instruction, the court did not err in holding that the
families forfeited the argument that the court gave an erroneous instruction. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 51(b)–(c); Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th
Cir. 2003).
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the families’ motion
for attorneys’ fees. See Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir.
2019). The district court applied the correct legal rule by considering “[t]he
difference between the amount recovered and the damages sought . . . the
significance of the legal issues on which the [families] . . . prevailed . . . [and]
whether the [families] accomplished some public goal.” Mahach-Watkins v.
Depee, 593 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The court’s factual
finding that the families’ victories related to “largely insignificant” legal issues
based on “technical, per se violations” of housing laws was plausible and
supported by facts in the record. The district court’s finding that the families did
not advance any public goal was also supported by record evidence that Ritchey
had “voluntarily remedied” any violations “years ago.” Because the families
obtained only nominal damages and did not achieve other meaningful legal or
public goals, Thomas v. City of Tacoma, which applies when a prevailing party is
awarded more than nominal damages, is inapplicable. See 410 F.3d 644, 648 (9th
Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED
3