Hammett

Hammett v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 17, 20233:19-cv-00605California1,871 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 MOTIONS FOR

v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

MARY E. SHERMAN, et al. [ECF Nos. 270, 271] Defendants. 16 This matter is before the Court on the Motions for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Defendants Patrick C. McGarrigle and McGarrigle, Kenney & Zampiello (together, the “MKZ Defendants”) (the “MKZ Fee Motion”) [ECF No. 270], and by Defendants Ellis Roy Stern, Alan N. Goldberg, Stern and Goldberg (together, the “S&G Defendants”) (the “S&G Fee Motion”) [ECF No. 271] (collectively, the “Attorney Defendants” and the “Fee Motions”). Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett filed an opposition to the MKZ Fee Motion [ECF No. 285], an opposition to the S&G Fee Motion [ECF No. 286], and both the MKZ Defendants [ECF No. 288] and S&G Defendants [ECF No. 287] filed replies to Plaintiff’s oppositions. The Court finds this matter suitable for determination on the…

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.