Legal Opinion
Chin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided May 15, 2007No. Civil Action 95-5569(JCL)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LIFLAND, District Judge.
I. Background
On November 8, 2006, the Court ruled that the 25 California-citizen Plaintiffs in this action are entitled to attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 from Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”). See Chin v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., No. 95-5569, slip op. at 7, 43-44 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2006). The factual and procedural history of the case is detailed in that opinion, and will not be recounted here. See id. at 1-7.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ application for fees under section 1021.5. Plaintiffs, represented by…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Ketchum v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Enron Corp. SecuritiesDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2008
- Prison Legal News v. SchwarzeneggerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Pennsylvania Chiropractic Ass'n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'nDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2014