Legal Opinion

Witt v. Bristol Farms

District Court, S.D. California

Decided October 7, 2022No. 3:21-cv-00411Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALIMA WITT, Case No. 21-cv-00411-BAS-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES (ECF No. 34) 14 BRISTOL FARMS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Bristol Farms’ motion for attorneys’ fees 18 under

42 U.S.C. § 12205

(“Fee Application”). (Fee App., ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff Salima 19 Witt opposes the motion (Opp’n, ECF No. 42) and Defendant replies (Reply, ECF No. 43). 20 For the following reasons, Defendant’s Fee Application is DENIED. 21 I. BACKGROUND1 22 Defendant…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. In Re Theodore W. Spong, Debtor. Raymond J. Pauley v. Theodore W. SpongCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
  5. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2016

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API