City of Santa Clarita v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors et al
| City of Santa Clarita |
| Cemex Inc, County of Los Angeles, Does, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Roes and United States Department of the Interior |
| 2:2004cv07355 |
| November 14, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| A. Howard Matz |
| Fernando M. Olguin |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
140
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES by Judge A. Howard Matz GRANTING Motion of Cemex for Attorneys Fees 120 , and Motion of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for Attorney Fees 116 . CEMEX sought $488,895.60 in its motion. In its reply memorand um, itrequested an additional $35,581.00 for a total of $524,476.60. (Part of theadditional sum was for fees incurred in drafting its motion for fees.) It is that amount which I award. The issues and arguments that the City raised in its o pposition to the motion of Los Angeles County and its Board of Supervisors are the same as thoseraised in CEMEX's motion. Accordingly, I incorporate the foregoing analysisand findings, add the finding that the fees of counsel for the County andSupervisors are reasonable, and award $57,599.72 in fees to the County and itsSupervisors. (jp)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
