Ingram v. Oroudjian, 09–57022.

• Citation: 647 F.3d 925
• Decision Date: 07 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–57022.,09–57022.
• Parties: Cecil INGRAM and The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, a California Non–Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Armine OROUDJIAN, an individual and Antony Abelyan, an individual, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

647 F.3d 925
11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9394
2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,281

Cecil INGRAM and The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, a California Non–Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Armine OROUDJIAN, an individual and Antony Abelyan, an individual, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 09–57022.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2011.*Filed July 27, 2011.

[647 F.3d 926]

Odion L. Okojie, Law Offices of Odion L. Okojie, Los Angeles, CA; Jerome Zamos, Law Offices of Jerome Zamos, Woodland Hills, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.Joseph C. Owens, William John Rea, Jr., Robert Anderson Wooten, Jr., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Gary Alan Starre, Starr & Cohn, Encino, CA, for the defendants-appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08–cv–03917–GAF (VBK).Before: D.W. NELSON and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.^**

OPINION PER CURIAM:

Cecil Ingram and The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley (“Appellants”) appeal the district court's order awarding them attorney fees following settlement of their claims against Armine Oroudjian and Antony Abelyan (“Appellees”) brought under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, and California law.

Ingram, disabled and confined to a wheelchair, lives in an apartment owned by Oroudjian and managed by Abelyan. In May of 2008, Ingram's bank did not honor his rent check and the landlord initiated an unlawful detainer action against Ingram in state court. While the state action was pending, Appellants filed this federal lawsuit alleging, among other

[647 F.3d 927]

things, discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act and violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Ingram eventually prevailed in the unlawful detainer action and maintained possession of his apartment.

After learning Ingram succeeded in the unlawful detainer action, the district court strongly encouraged the parties to settle this case. Instead, according to the district court, counsel for Appellants took unreasonable settlement positions and prolonged the litigation, forcing Appellees to pursue litigation alternatives, including a motion for summary judgment. With an opening demand of $425,000, the case later settled for payments of $30,000 to Ingram and $2,000 to the Fair Housing Council, an offer which had been rejected by Appellants one month before settling for that amount. Following settlement, Appellants moved for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $88,857.50. The district court awarded $30,485.00. Appellants argue the district court erred by deducting some of the hours billed and lowering the hourly rates requested by Appellants.

We review the district court's decision awarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. See Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan, 608 F.3d 1118, 1121(9th Cir.2010).

Appellants raise four arguments in support of their claim that the district court abused its discretion: 1) the district court improperly considered settlement proceedings; 2) the district court should have awarded fees for responding to the summary judgment motion; 3) the district court erred by disallowing fees for briefing the abstention doctrine under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27...