Behne

Behne v. Microtouch Systems, Inc.

Good Law
58 F. Supp. 2d 1096·1999 WL 587784·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20835
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 15, 1999C 97-21012 EAICalifornia2,137 words

Opinion

Opinion

Infante, J.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS COSTS

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is the post-trial motion by Plaintiff seeking an award of attorneys fees and costs. The motion came on for hearing before the Court on July 12, 1999, the parties appearing through their respective counsel of record. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

From February 23, 1999 through March 11, 1999, the Court conducted a jury trial on Plaintiff Alissa Behne’s claims against Defendant Microtouch. Behne proceeded to trial generally on two theories: 1) fraud in that Defendant made intentional and negligent misrepresentations to induce Behne to accept employment, and 2) sex discrimination and retaliation, in that during Plaintiffs employment, Defendant engaged in sex discrimination, against her, and took adverse action against her in retaliation for her having filed an EEOC complaint. On March 12, 1999, the jury returned a special verdict in Plaintiffs favor on her fraud-based claims, and largely against…

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.