Legal Opinion

Aispuro v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, S.D. California

Decided August 10, 2020No. 3:18-cv-02045Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAZARO AISPURO and GONZALO Case No.: 18-CV-2045 DMS (KSC) AISPURO NUNEZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, 13 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES (ECF No. 37) 14 AND GRANTING MOTION TO TAX FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 15 COSTS (ECF No. 38) Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees and to tax costs. 21 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”) filed a response to the motion 22 for attorney’s…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  3. Martin Gonzalez, Sr. v. City of MaywoodCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  4. Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  5. Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API