McEwen

McEwen v. Benedict

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20213:20-cv-02364California1,267 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARLA MCEWEN, et al., Case No.: 3:20-cv-2364-CAB-LL

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

AMANDA BENEDICT, et al., [Doc. No. 70] Defendants. 16 17 On August 18, 2021, Defendants Shoot for the Moon Sales Consultants, LLC, and Dennis Conklin, individually, as trustee of Shoot for the Moon DBPP (“Defendants”) filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to contractual prevailing party fee provisions. [Doc. No. 70.] On September 3, 2021, Plaintiffs Carla McEwen and Daniel Buzahar (“Plaintiffs”) filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 78.] On September 10, 2021, Defendants filed a reply. [Doc. No. 79.] For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2017, Plaintiffs obtained a loan from SFTM for $100,000 (the “2017 Note”). [Doc. 45, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 28.] The 2017 Note was secured by a 28 …

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.