Legal Opinion
Chin v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 9, 2006No. Civil Action 95-5569 (JCL)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LIFLAND, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. The question presented is whether Plaintiffs’ class-action lawsuit was a material factor motivating Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s (“Chrysler”) voluntary decision to recall vehicles installed with defective anti-lock braking systems (“ABS”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ suit was a catalyst for Chrysler’s remedial action, and thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees under section…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State PrisonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1978
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hogar v. Community Development CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Chin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007