Herrington v. County of Sonoma

6 Citing briefs

  1. O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

    MOTION for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge re Order on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Filed July 27, 2015

    Plaintiffs cannot recover fees for duplicative work, such as having multiple timekeepers independently circulate each ECF notice, or duplicating deposition preparation or summaries of depositions or hearings. Herrington v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 747 (9th Cir. 1989).25 See NCAA Opp., Dkt. 355 at 18-19.

  2. O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed February 6, 2015

    Case4:09-cv-03329-CW Document355 Filed02/06/15 Page24 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 DEFENDANT NCAA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES Case No. 09-cv-3329-CW counsel necessitates a reduction of the hours claimed. Herrington v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 747 (9th Cir. 1989); Cruz, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 1191-92. Exhibits 29 and 30 identify the redundant billing entries.

  3. Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

    MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law and, MOTION for New Trial

    Filed February 23, 2011

    RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL AND NEW TRIAL MOTION Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) vacated where it is “so grossly excessive that it shock[s] the conscience.” Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 741 (9th Cir. 1989). In determining whether damages are excessive, “the [c]ourt must focus on evidence of the qualitative harm suffered by plaintiff.”

  4. JANKEY v. LEE

    Appellant, Les Jankey, Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed June 10, 2010

    Consequently, recovery under the ADA is the rule rather than the exception. Jbid. citing Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 1989). This is, incidentally, the same standard thatis applied to fee requests under Section 55.

  5. JANKEY v. LEE

    Appellant, Les Jankey, Petition for Review

    Filed March 11, 2010

    Consequently, recovery under the ADA is the rule rather than the exception. Jbid. citing Herrington v. County ofSonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 1989). This is, incidentally, the same standardthat is applied to fee requests under Section 55.

  6. Hamby et al v. Parnell et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re First MOTION for Attorney Fees

    Filed November 25, 2014

    Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001). 14 Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 883 F.2d 739, 747 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).