Hammett

Hammett v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20223:19-cv-00605California3,554 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19cv605-LL-AHG

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES

MARY E. SHERMAN, et al.

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

Defendants. REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

16 [ECF Nos. 177, 193] 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Motion to Vacate Void Orders Granting Attorneys’ Fees. ECF No. 177. The Motion requests that the Court vacate or reconsider its March 23, 2020 order [ECF No. 111] granting the motions for attorneys’ fees of (a) Defendants Patrick C. McGarrigle and McGarrigle, Kenney & Zampiello, APC (the “MKZ Defendants”) [ECF No. 49] and (b) Defendants Ellis Stern, Alan N. Goldberg, and Stern & Goldberg Attorneys (the “S&G Defendants”) [ECF No. 54] (jointly, the “Attorney Defendants”). The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument…

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.