§Why CasetextPricing

Medifast, Inc. et al v. Minkow et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54

10 Cited authorities

  1. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles

    796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 1,088 times
    Holding that for purposes of claiming a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "counsel bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been expended."

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

    6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 342 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

  3. Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co.

    718 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 179 times
    Holding that district court retains jurisdiction to resolve attorneys' fees issues after appellate court has taken jurisdiction on merits

  4. Macias v. Hartwell

    55 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 107 times
    Concluding that statements were about public issues because they were about an HOA's decisions regarding governance, including whether the manager was competent to continue managing the community of 3,000 community members

  5. Jackson v. Yarbray

    179 Cal.App.4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 51 times
    In Jackson v. Yarbray (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 75, the court held that the reporter's transcript of a hearing on a motion for attorney fees, along with a notice of ruling, was sufficient to confirm the existence of a legally cognizable order awarding attorney fees, which precluded a collateral challenge to the reasonable value of the legal services covered by the award in a subsequent malicious prosecution action.

  6. West v. Keve

    721 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 101 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 60(b) "cannot be used as a means of avoiding dismissal for want of a timely appeal"

  7. Kearney v. Foley and Lardner

    553 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)'s fourteen-day timing requirement was applicable even though fee application was based on California substantive law but granting defendants' motion for an extension of time because of excusable neglect

  8. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,046 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

  9. Rule 58 - Entering Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 58   Cited 18,282 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that, after a jury verdict, the Court must enter judgment "in a separate document"

  10. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,810 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees