Legal Opinion
Hajro v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 15, 2012No. Case No. 08-1350-PSGPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Mirsad Hajro (“Hajro”) and Plaintiff James R. Mayock (“Mayock”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), T. Diane Cejka (“Cejka”), Rosemary Melville (“Melville”), and Janet Napolitano (“Napolitano”) (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA” or “the Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E). Having considered the parties’ papers and…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Clinton v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. JeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blajro v. CitizenshipCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Banas v. Volcano Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Mirsad Hajro v. UscisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Mirsad Hajro v. UscisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016