Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County Inc et al v. Litchfield et al
| Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County Inc and Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach |
| Town of Litchfield, Litchfield Historic Dist Comm and Doe One through Ten |
| 3:2009cv01419 |
| September 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Litchfield |
| Janet C. Hall |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Public Accomodations) |
| Defendant |
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
366
RULING granting in part and denying in part 350 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the reasons stated herein, the Chabads Motion for Appellate Attorneys Fees (Doc. No. 350) is granted in part and denied in part. The court awards a total of $54,849 .25 in appellate attorney fees, which reflects the calculation above, see supra Section III(A). In addition, the court awards $4,457.17 in appellate costs, for a total monetary award of $59,306.42.The Chabad will be entitled to interest on the appellate attorneys fees awarded in this Order from the date of judgment once such judgment enters. The court also holds that the Chabad is entitled to interest on the courts previous award of $717,405.95, at a rate of 2.31%, computed beginning on May 23, 2018. As of March 31, 2020, the amount of such interest is $31,087.76. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 3/31/2020. (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing
345
RULING: For the reasons stated above, the Chabads Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. No. 329 ) is granted. The court awards a total of $611,662.09 in attorney fees, which reflects the lodestar calculation above, see supra Section II(D), divided in half to account for the partial success of the Chabad, see supra Section II(B). In addition, the court awards $105,281.36 in costs, for a total monetary award of $717,405.95. The Defendants Motion for Permission to File Supplemental Information (Doc. No. 343 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing
253
RULING denying 229 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 9/29/2016. (Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing
226
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 88 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 141 Motion to Dismiss; denying 185 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 187 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/27/2016. (Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing
193
RULING denying 189 Motion to Stay, without prejudice to the plaintiffs seeking, at the Court of Appeals, that the mandate be recalled and a stay issue. Relief may also be sought at the United States Supreme Court. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/28/2015. (Malone, P.)
|
|
Filing
169
ORDER denying 137 Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 138 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 140 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 2/17/2012. (DeRubeis, B.)
|
|
Filing
151
RULING granting 88 Motion to Dismiss; denying 101 Motion to Dismiss; denying 101 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 141 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 6/20/2011. (Simpson, T.)
|
|
Filing
68
RULING denying 59 Motion to Dismiss Counts Nine & Ten of the Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/20/2010. (Simpson, T.)
|
|
Filing
60
RULING denying 28 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/7/2010. (Simpson, T.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
