Banas v. Volcano Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART VOLCANO’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 106, 123
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
Having prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, defendant Volcano Corporation is entitled to its reasonable fees and costs pursuant to an attorneys’ fees provision in the merger agreement from which the underlying dispute arose. The amount it seeks — $3,557,034.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,023,995.99 in costs and disbursements, totaling $4,581,030.49 — is eye-catching, and the lack of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Moreno v. City of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. American Motorists Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- Fu-Kong Tzung Jean Tzung v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Does 1 Through 100, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. American Legacy FoundationSupreme Court of Delaware · 2006
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- Al-Mansur v. County of AlamedaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Almanza v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
- Aoki v. GilbertDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Ascentium Capital LLC v. LittellDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 2022
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.