Legal Opinion
Borenstein v. The Animal Foundation
District Court, D. Nevada
Decided November 28, 2023No. 2:19-cv-00985Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 BRIAN BORENSTEIN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00985-CDS-NJK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. [Docket No. 367] 10 THE ANIMAL FOUNDATION, et al., 11 Defendant. 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to calculate expenses. Docket No. 367. 13 Defendant The Animal Foundation filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 377. Plaintiff filed 14 a reply. Docket No. 386. A hearing on the motion is not necessary. See Local Rule 78-1. For the 15 reasons discussed more fully below, the motion to calculate expenses is GRANTED in part and 16 DENIED in…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.