Legal Opinion
Batta Fulkerson, LLP v. Bulldog Law, P.C.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided May 8, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00551Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BATTA FULKERSON, LLP, Case No.: 25-cv-00551-AGS-GC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 14 BULLDOG LAW, P.C., AND COSTS 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 64] 16 17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 18 19 20 Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiff Batta 21 Fulkerson (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 64.) Defendant Bulldog Law, P.C. (“Defendant”) filed 22 an opposition. (ECF No. 67.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED 23…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. HaegerSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
- Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Del P. Henry, Jr., a Single Man, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Gill Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.