Legal Opinion
Biotronik, Inc. v. Fry
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided December 1, 2020No. 3:20-cv-00094Unknown
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BIOTRONIK, INC., Petitioner, No. 3:20-cv-00094-MO v. OPINION AND ORDER RONALD FRY and DENOVO MEDICAL, INC., Respondents. MOSMAN, J., Before me is Petitioner Biotronik, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [ECF 22]. I previously granted Biotronik’s Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award [ECF 9], and now Biotronik argues that it is entitled to those fees and costs incurred in obtaining a favorable judgment. For the reasons discussed below, I GRANT in part Biotronik’s Motion [ECF 22]. BACKGROUND A brief…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Loretta J. Brokeshoulder SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Industries, Inc., of ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Mardirossian v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2006