Legal Opinion
Forras v. Rauf
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 6, 2014No. Civil Action No. 2012-0282PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION HOLDING DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN ABEYANCE AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISCOVERY
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Adam Bailey (“Defendants”) bring this supplemental motion for attorney fees. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiffs Vincent Forras and Larry Klayman (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion on the merits and also move this Court to hold the attorney fees motion in abeyance pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ appeal. (Doc. No. 21 at 2). Plaintiffs further move for discovery…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- John Doe No. 1 v. Susan L. BurkeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- Forras v. RaufDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
3Cited by3 opinions
- Calderon-Amezquita v. Rivera-CruzDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2020
- Carter v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2023
- Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. v. MandreganDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019