Legal Opinion
Eiden v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California
Decided February 23, 2005No. S-04-0398 WBS PANPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’FEES AND COSTS
SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a paraplegic, brought suit against defendant Thrifty Payless (“defendant”), 1 seeking, among other remedies, the removal of architectural barriers to his access at defendant’s Rite-Aid store in Oroville. On December 7, 2004, plaintiffs acceptance of defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (“Rule 68”) offer was filed in this court, and on January 7, 2005, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (“ § 12205”).
1. Factual and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Julie Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, a Municipal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Association of Irritated Residents v. C & R Vanderham DairyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2006
- BUCHANNON v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES INCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
- G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC v. REMSEN ASSOCIATAES, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2021