Legal Opinion
Marrocco v. Hill
District Court, D. Nevada
Decided July 22, 2013No. 2:12-cv-0028-JCM-NJKPublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
NANCY J. KOPPE, United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs request for expenses related to briefing and arguing his counter-motion to compel that the Court granted on January 24, 2013. Docket No. 49; see also Docket No. 48 (order granting counter-motion to compel).1 Defendants objected to the calculation of expenses sought. See Docket No. 50. The Court finds the matter appropriately decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and sets…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Moreno v. City of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Gates v. DeukmejianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Sobel v. Hertz Corp.District Court, D. Nevada · 2014
- Anzaldo v. Social SecurityDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2024
- Barnett v. Social SecurityDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2022
- Bascom v. SaulDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2021
- Board of Trustees of the Painters and Floorcoverers Joint Committee v. Accelerated Construction, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 2020
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.