5 6 LAURA ALEXIS, an Individual v. James B. Rogers;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
LAURA ALEXIS, an Individual,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES B. ROGERS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 17-56481
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00691-CAB-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the Southern District of California 9
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted August 15, 2018**
12
13
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 14
James B. Rogers, Gladys Holdings, LLC, and Beeland Interests, Inc. appeal 15
from the district court’s order denying their motion for attorney’s fees. We have 16
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. EEOC 17
v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 424 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. 18
* 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).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56481
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion 1
for attorney’s fees because the record does not support a finding that plaintiff’s 2
claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. See Rosenman v. 3
Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903, 4
906-09 (Ct. App. 2001) (discussing standard for awarding attorney’s fees under 5
Cal. Gov. Code § 12965(b) and explaining that attorney’s fees should only be 6
awarded to prevailing defendants in “rare cases”). 7
AFFIRMED. 8

-- 2 of 2 --