Legal Opinion

Puccio v. Love

District Court, S.D. California

Decided January 28, 2020No. 3:16-cv-02890Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH PUCCIO and MARCIA Case No.: 16-cv-02890 W (BGS) PUCCIO, 12 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 v. GRANTING IN PART AND 14 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ FRANKLIN J. LOVE, and CMRE 15 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES FINANCIAL SERVICES, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES 16 Defendants. [DOC. 56] 17 18 19 20 21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees [Doc. 56]. The 22 Court decides the matters without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 23 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Missouri v. Jenkins Ex Rel. AgyeiSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
  4. Dolores J. Copeland, Individually and on Behalf of the Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  5. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API