Bissat
Bissat v. City of Visalia
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 9 RASHID BISSAT, Case No. 1:21-cv-01649-JLT-SKO 10 Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
11 v. F MI OLE T IS OU NP P FL OE RM AE TN TT OA RL N B ER YI ’E S F FI EN EG S RE 12 5 DAY DEADLINE 13 CITY OF VISALIA, A CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND
14 CHARTER CITY, 15 Defendant. 16 _____________________________________/ 17 The undersigned filed an order on March 7, 2024, (Doc. 34) requiring Plaintiff to show 18 cause as to why sanctions should not issue for failing to comply with a previous Court order. In 19 this order, the Court also invited the City of Visalia (the “Defendant”) to file a motion for 20 attorney’s fees. (Id.). Defendant filed their motion on March 15, 2024. (Doc. 35). In their 21 motion, Defendant contends that “[b]ecause sanctions are an appropriate response to the willful 22 disobedience of a court order, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $7,500.99 in 23 favor of Defendant City of Visalia is warranted.” (Doc. 35-1 at 3). This sum represents the total 24 fees…