Watkins v. Vance
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ fourth motion for attorneys’ fees with respect to counsel’s activities in connection with the claims of Kenneth Massey, Joshua McMillian and De’Mitria Rice and in connection with the time expended litigating their claims for attorneys’ fees. 1 Upon careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and supporting materials, the Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion in part and deny it in part.
I. BACKGROUND
The procedural history with respect to the three remaining plaintiffs in these consolidated actions is as…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of DefenseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Blackman v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006
- Alfonso v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Armstrong v. VanceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Douglas v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Shaw v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.