Legal Opinion

Iconic Mars Corporation v. Kaotica Corporation

District Court, S.D. California

Decided August 25, 2025No. 3:22-cv-00092Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ICONIC MARS CORP., Case No.: 22-CV-0092-CAB-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 14 KAOTICA CORP., [Doc. No. 145] 15 Defendant. 16 17 A. Background 18 On February 5, 2025, the Court entered an order in this case awarding 19 defendant/counterclaimant Kaotica Corporation its attorneys’ fees and costs. [Doc. No. 20 145.]1 The award was made following a jury trial and post-trial motions on equitable 21 claims. The jury determined plaintiff/counter-defendant Iconic Mars…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. HaegerSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
  4. David M. Fink v. James H. Gomez, Director, Diana Carloni NourseCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  5. Intel Corporation v. Terabyte International, Inc., Jean Hsu, Kenneth HsuCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

4 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