Hubard

(PC) Penton v. Hubard

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 12, 20242:11-cv-00518California4,129 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY PENTON, No. 2:11-cv-00518-DJC-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER

LAYTON JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently pending are Plaintiff Anthony Penton’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs based on Plaintiff’s success in obtaining a judgment a trial. (ECF Nos. 378, 401.) Plaintiff initially filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on October 20, 2023, (ECF No. 378) but following further post-trial litigation, filed a “Supplemental” Motion (Mot. at (ECF No. 401)) which substantially altered Plaintiff’s requested fees and costs. As the parties briefing is directed to the more recent of the two motions, that is the relevant motion for fees and costs before the Court. The original motion is denied as moot. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion. //// //// I. Defendant Layton Johnson’s Pending Appeal A little over a week after Plaintiff…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.