Armstrong et al v. San Francisco, City and County of

Filing 141

ORDER re 136 GRANTING attorneys' fees and costs. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONNIE L BROWN, Plaintiffs, v CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and DOES 1-50, Defendants. / JAMES ARMSTRONG et al, Plaintiffs, v CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and DOES 1-50, Defendants. No C 01-2611 VRW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA / No C 04-1536 VRW ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On May 18, 2009, the court ordered plaintiff Connie L Brown to show cause why defendant CCSF's motion for attorneys' fees should not be granted. Brown was warned that if she failed to Doc #139 respond to the order, the court would grant the motion. at 3. Brown did not respond to the order, and the deadline for doing so has passed. An award of attorneys' fees is appropriate in settlement enforcement actions. See TNT Marketing, Inc v Simon, 796 F2d 276, Accordingly, the court GRANTS Doc #136 at 278-79 (9th Cir 1986). 7, CCSF's motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,360. Unless the parties otherwise agree, Brown shall pay CCSF $1,360 within thirty days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?