Vaks v. Quinlan
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) RIMMA VAKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 18-12571-LTS ) LUMIRADX, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT LUMIRADX, INC.’S REQUEST FOR FEES (DOC. NO. 127) February 4, 2021 SOROKIN, J. In a prior Order (Doc. No. 125), the Court allowed Defendant LumiraDx’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in opposing Plaintiff Rimma Vaks’s Motion to Strike. Before the Court is LumiraDx’s Request for Fees, which seeks reimbursement for $15,516.90 in fees, an amount which Vaks argues is excessive. For the reasons which follow, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Yaman v. YamanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
- Norkunas v. HPT Cambridge, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2013
- JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC v. TobinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.