Baffert

Baffert v. Wunderler

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 15, 20243:23-cv-01774California2,909 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BOB BAFFERT, et al., Case No.: 23-cv-1774-RSH-BLM

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

v. DICORCIA’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES

JUSTIN A. WUNDERLER and DANIEL

DICORCIA,

[ECF No. 55] Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is a motion for attorney’s fees filed by defendant Daniel DiCorcia (“DiCorcia”). ECF No. 55. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1) the Court finds the motion presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion. I. BACKGROUND This lawsuit arises from statements defendants DiCorcia and Justin Wunderler (“Wunderler”) made on social media, primarily on the platforms X (formerly Twitter) and Spaces. Of relevance to the instant motion, on September 27, 2023, Plaintiffs Bob Baffert and Bob Baffert Racing Stables, Inc. (“BBRI”) filed the initial Complaint in this action. ECF No. 1.…

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.