Legal Opinion
K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School District
District Court, C.D. California
Decided June 1, 2015No. Case No. SA CV 10-1011-DOC (MLGx)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1293ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [95]
DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff K.M.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Oral arguments were heard on May 26, 2015. Having reviewed the papers and supporting exhibits, and considered the oral arguments, the Court rules as follows: the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that a fee award of 50% of the lodestar for work done during the underlying administrative proceeding, 75% of the lodestar for work done at the district court through summary judgment, and 100% of the lodestar for work done on…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. RowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Juan Albino v. Lee BacaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- T.B. v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist.District Court, S.D. California · 2018
- Bernal v. Sacramento County Sheriff DepartmentDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- Johnson v. Ace BrunkDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
- Johnson v. RehmanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Johnson v. Shiva Rental, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.