Cosby v. AutoZone, Inc. et al
Filing
120
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/24/10 ORDERING that defendant shall file a supplemental brief on the issues discussed above within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order; and plaintiff shall file a response to defendant's supplemental brief within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order. (Becknal, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AUTOZONE, INC., JIM KULBACKI and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. / On May 24, 2010, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. At this hearing the court instructed the parties to brief whether and/or under what conditions the court is permitted to reduce the fees awarded to plaintiff by a O R D E R RANDY COSBY, NO. CIV. S-08-505 LKK/DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
percentage of fees billed. The court further instructs the parties to brief whether Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. ___ (2010), should apply to the case at bar. Specifically, the issue addressed in Perdue was "whether the calculation of an attorney's fee, under federal fee-shifting 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
statutes, based on the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates, may be increased due to superior performance and results." Id. (emphasis added). This case concerns the application of the California fee-shifting statutes. For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows: (1) Defendant shall file a supplemental brief on the issues discussed above within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order. (2) Plaintiff shall file a response to defendant's
supplemental brief within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 24, 2010.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
