Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES
JAMES WARE, Chief Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motions for Attorney Fees.1 The Court finds it appropriate to take the Motions under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7 — 1(b). Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs Motions for Attorney Fees.
A. Background
A detailed discussion of the factual background and procedural history of this case may be found in the Court’s July 8, 2010 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Moreno v. City of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained ProgramDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2013
- Acosta v. Parra PerezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
- Base v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Base v. FCA US LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020
- Block v. NarwalDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.