Legal Opinion

Cataphora Inc. v. Parker

District Court, N.D. California

Decided January 24, 2012No. C09-5749 BZPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CORRECTED ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND INTEREST

BERNARD ZIMMERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff has moved for attorney’s fees and costs, as the “prevailing party” under California Civil Code section 1717, and for prejudgment and postjudgment interest.1

ATTORNEY’S FEES

“In an action involving state law claims, [federal courts] apply the law of the forum state to determine whether a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees, unless it conflicts with a valid federal statute or procedural rule.” MRO Commc’ns v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 197 F.3d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir.1999). Here, the parties…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  3. Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co.California Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Tamara Diaz v. Kubler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
  2. Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
  3. Broadcast Music, Inc., Beechwood Music Corp., Sony/ATV Songs, LLC, and Beanly, Inc. v. Avenue Ultra Lounge, LLC and Kevin HernandezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2026
  4. Castillo-Antonio v. BuenoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
  5. Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC v. Metalast International, IncDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2021

8 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