Legal Opinion

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chapman

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 19, 2015No. 13-16532UnpublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ***

Daniel Chapman, an attorney appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). In the underlying action, Chapman (also appearing pro se) prevailed against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in a securities fraud case, charging that Chapman entered into a scheme to manipulate the market for the stock of Exotics.com.

1. The district court did not err in denying Chapman attorney’s fees. In Kay v. Ehrler, the Supreme Court determined that pro se attorney-plaintiff litigants…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kay v. EhrlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Rodriguez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. Elwood v. DrescherCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
  4. Southwest Marine, Inc., on Behalf of Universal Painting and Sandblasting Corp. v. United States of America and the United States Department of NavyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  5. Elisa Cazares v. James BarberCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Raya v. BarkaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API