9th Circuit rules an ADA plaintiff who won a court-ordered injunction forcing a store to…
Price v. Diab
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit rules an ADA plaintiff who won a court-ordered injunction forcing a store to fix accessibility barriers IS a 'prevailing party' entitled to seek attorney's fees.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had denied attorney's fees to a wheelchair-using plaintiff who won an injunction requiring a Family Dollar store to fix accessibility barriers. The district court had reasoned that because the injunction only ordered what federal law already required, the plaintiff was not a 'prevailing party' under the ADA's fee statute. The appeals court found that reasoning was based on a misreading of prior case law and sent the case back for further proceedings on how much in fees should be awarded.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects disabled individuals who sue businesses under the ADA and win court-ordered injunctions, as it confirms they can seek attorney's fees as prevailing parties. It also affects businesses and property owners who may face ADA accessibility lawsuits, since they may now be liable for plaintiffs' legal costs even when an injunction only orders compliance with existing law.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Published opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Published opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Published opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
LaSandra Price, a wheelchair user with Parkinson's disease, sued a Family Dollar store in Fontana, California, and its owner, Wael Diab, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She alleged she repeatedly encountered accessibility problems at the store, including poorly marked disabled parking, uneven walkways, and narrow aisles. When the defendants never responded to her lawsuit, the court entered a default judgment and issued an injunction ordering them to bring the store into ADA compliance within 180 days. Price then sought roughly $9,364 in attorney's fees and costs under the ADA's fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. Section 12205, which allows a prevailing party to obtain a reasonable attorney's fee. The district court denied the request. Its reasoning was that because the injunction only required the defendants to do what federal law already obligated them to do, the plaintiff had not truly 'prevailed' in a meaningful legal sense. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and reversed that decision. The appeals court explained that a plaintiff prevails, for purposes of attorney's fees, when she obtains actual relief on the merits that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court had misread a prior Ninth Circuit case called Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., which actually rejected the very reasoning the district court relied upon. Because Price obtained a final court-ordered injunction, she qualified as a prevailing party. The appeals court did not decide how much in fees Price should receive. The district court had separately noted concerns about the fee request, including that the motion appeared to be copied from another case and contained errors, and that the hours billed seemed excessive. Those questions were left for the district court to address on remand. The opinion was authored by Judge Bress, and no dissent is described in the available source text.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LASANDRA PRICE, No. 25-713 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:21-cv-01715- JWH-kk v. WAEL DIAB; FAMILY DOLLAR #8920, an unknown form of business, OPINION Defendants - Appellees, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 23, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed July 13, 2026 2 PRICE V. DIAB Before: Stephen A. Higginson, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges. * Opinion by Judge Bress SUMMARY ** Americans with Disabilities Act / Attorney’s Fees The panel reversed the district court’s order denying a plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act and remanded for further proceedings on the fee motion. The district court granted the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment and injunctive relief against the defendant store and its owner, ordering them to update the store’s premises to provide greater accessibility for disabled persons. But the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 on the ground that she was not a prevailing party because the injunction required the defendants to do only what federal law already required. The panel held that under § 12205, a prevailing party in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act may obtain a reasonable attorney’s fee. A plaintiff prevails when * The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PRICE V. DIAB 3 actual relief on the merits of her claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. The panel concluded that the district court misread Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000), which in fact effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning. Here, the plaintiff was a prevailing party by virtue of the final injunctive relief she obtained. COUNSEL Anoush Hakimi (argued) and Frederick Chernoff, Hakimi & Shahriari, Encino, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 4 PRICE V. DIAB OPINION BRESS, Circuit Judge: In this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case, the district court granted the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment and injunctive relief against the defendant store and its owner, ordering them to update the store’s premises to provide greater accessibility for disabled persons. But when the plaintiff sought attorney’s fees, the district court denied the request on the ground that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the injunction required the defendants to do only what federal law already required. That determination rested on a misapprehension of case law. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the fee motion. I LaSandra Price suffers from Parkinson’s disease, which requires her to use a wheelchair for mobility. She filed this ADA suit against Family Dollar #8920, located in Fontana, California, and the store’s owner, Wael Diab. According to Price’s complaint, she visited Diab’s Family Dollar store four times between August and September 2021. Each time Price visited, she encountered difficulty accessing the premises. For example, disabled parking spaces were poorly marked, walkways were not level, and aisles were too narrow. Price alleged that these and other accessibility barriers violated the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. 1 1 The district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over Price’s Unruh Act claim after determining she was a “high-frequency litigant.” PRICE V. DIAB 5 Neither Family Dollar nor Diab filed a response to Price’s complaint, so the clerk entered defaults against both defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Price subsequently moved for a default judgment, requesting an order directing Diab and Family Dollar to provide, within one hundred eighty (180) days, accessible paths of travel from the designated disabled parking spaces to the business entrance, accessible parking spaces, compliant signage regarding parking, and an accessible business entrance at the [Family Dollar store], in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. In support of her motion, Price attached declarations from herself, her attorney, and her investigator, as well as photographs of the allegedly non-compliant conditions. The district court granted Price’s request for a default judgment. It then ordered the injunctive relief Price requested, noting that “[i]f anything, Price’s proposed order is narrower and more specific than what she requested in her pleadings.” The court thus granted Price’s request for an injunction “to bring the premises of the Family Dollar into compliance with ADA requirements.” Price subsequently moved for $9,364 in attorney’s fees and costs ($8,872 for 31.2 hours worked and $492 in costs). The fee request included a declaration from counsel Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b); see Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2021). That determination is not before us. 6 PRICE V. DIAB describing the work performed, itemized billing records, receipts, and a third-party report on prevailing rates. The district court denied Price’s fee request in a published decision. See Price v. Diab, 761 F. Supp. 3d 1279, 1282 (C.D. Cal. 2025). The court reasoned that Price was not a “prevailing party” because the injunction did “not require Defendants to do anything that they are not already required to do under federal law.” Id. at 1288–89. The district court acknowledged that courts “frequently award prevailing-party status for plaintiffs in similar situations: a plaintiff who has won default judgment against a defendant under the ADA and has been granted only injunctive relief— without damages or other relief—compelling adherence to the statute.” Id. at 1285. The district court further acknowledged that this court’s precedents “appear to presume prevailing-party status for plaintiffs that were granted injunctive relief or default judgment.” Id. at 1286. However, the district court concluded that none of these cases “grapples with the question of prevailing-party status.” Id. at 1285–86. The district court further observed that even if Price were a prevailing party, her counsel “would not be entitled to the unreasonable amount that they request.” Id. at 1290. The court noted that the fee motion was “recycled . . . nearly whole-cloth from another recent case” before it, and the motion frequently used incorrect male pronouns for Ms. Price as a result. Id. at 1289 & n.22. The district court also questioned the amount of time Price’s counsel had billed. Id. at 1290. But the district court did not rule on the amount of fees that could be reasonably awarded if Price were the prevailing party. See id. PRICE V. DIAB 7 Price appeals the d
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.