Frank Aviles v. County of Orange et al, No. 8:2013cv00622 - Document 101 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION by Judge Josephine L. Staton, in favor of Frank Aviles against County of Orange. Plaintiff Frank Aviles shall recover $155,371.20 from Defendant County of Orange, consisting of: $43,560.00 in back pay damages; $275.00 in pre-Judgment interest; $5,911.25 in Costs; and $105,625.00 in Attorneys Fees. Related to: Notice of Lodging 100 . (twdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Frank Aviles v. County of Orange et al Doc. 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 FRANK AVILES, 12 Case No. SACV-13-622 JLS (RNBx) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF ORANGE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 15 Defendants. 16 FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION 17 18 19 Following Trial by Jury, a Verdict was entered herein on May 23, 2014, 20 awarding $43,560.00 in back pay damages to Plaintiff Frank Aviles, against 21 Defendant County of Orange; on July 21, 2014, the Court awarded pre-Judgment 22 interest of $275.00, computed at the rate of 0.09% pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §1961, 23 compounded annually; Plaintiff Frank Aviles filed an Application to Tax Costs, on 24 June 6, 2014; Defendant County of Orange filed an Objection to that Application to 25 Tax, on June 19, 2014, challenging all but $5,911.25 of Plaintiff Frank Aviles’ 26 claimed Costs; and by Order issued on November 3, 2014, the Court awarded 27 Attorneys’ Fees of $105,625.00 to Plaintiff Frank Aviles. 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, and pursuant to the Court’s November 3, 2014 Order, IT IS 2 HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff Frank Aviles shall recover $155,371.20 from 3 Defendant County of Orange, consisting of: $43,560.00 in back pay damages; 4 $275.00 in pre-Judgment interest; $5,911.25 in Costs; and $105,625.00 in Attorneys’ 5 Fees. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 18, 2014 _______________________________ HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
