§Why CasetextPricing

Cortina v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Sanctions against Plaintiff's Attorneys

40 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,571 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

    447 U.S. 752 (1980)   Cited 2,846 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

  3. Welch v. Metropolitan Life

    480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 944 times
    Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

  4. B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept

    276 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 962 times
    Holding that misconduct committed "in an unreasonable and vexatious manner" that "multiplies the proceedings" violates § 1927

  5. Gomez v. Vernon

    255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that "repeated threats of transfer because of [the plaintiff's] complaints about the administration of the [prison] library" were sufficient to ground a retaliation claim

  6. Jordan v. Multnomah County

    815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 720 times
    Holding that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar represents a reasonable fee

  7. In re Keegan Management, Securities Litigation

    78 F.3d 431 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 521 times
    Holding § 1927 sanctions "must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith"

  8. Debauche v. Trani

    191 F.3d 499 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 419 times
    Holding that Eleventh Amendment immunity barred declaratory and injunctive relief when no ongoing violations of federal law were alleged.

  9. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Intern., Inc.

    6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 343 times
    Holding that brief served as notice of appeal from determination of award of attorney's fees despite fact that fees determined after appeal noticed from underlying judgment

  10. Serrano v. Unruh

    32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 403 times
    Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."

  11. Section 1920 - Taxation of costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 12,486 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States

  12. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,833 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

  13. Section 111.70 - What specifications must you establish?

    21 C.F.R. § 111.70   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) You must establish a specification for any point, step, or stage in the manufacturing process where control is necessary to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in the master manufacturing record. (b) For each component that you use in the manufacture of a dietary supplement, you must establish component specifications as follows: (1) You must establish an identity specification; (2) You must establish component specifications

  14. Section 111.75 - What must you do to determine whether specifications are met?

    21 C.F.R. § 111.75   Cited 6 times

    (a) Before you use a component, you must: (1) (i) Conduct at least one appropriate test or examination to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient, unless you petition the agency under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section and the agency exempts you from such testing; (ii) You may submit a petition, under 21 CFR 10.30 , to request an exemption from the testing requirements in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. The petition must set forth the scientific rationale, and must

  15. Section 111.77 - What must you do if established specifications are not met?

    21 C.F.R. § 111.77   Cited 1 times

    (a) For specifications established under § 111.70(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (d), (e), and (g) that you do not meet, quality control personnel, in accordance with the requirements in subpart F of this part, must reject the component, dietary supplement, package or label unless such personnel approve a treatment, an in-process adjustment, or reprocessing that will ensure the quality of the finished dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in the master

  16. Section 111.73 - What is your responsibility for determining whether established specifications are met?

    21 C.F.R. § 111.73

    You must determine whether the specifications you establish under § 111.70 are met. 21 C.F.R. §111.73