TCR Holdings, LLC v. Nye County, Nevada et al.,

Filing 116

ORDER Denying as Moot 89 Motion for Attorney Fees Requesting $95,000.00. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/10/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge TCR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NYE COUNTY, NEVADA, Defendant. 2:09-CV-433 JCM (GWF) ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff TCR Holding, LLC's (hereinafter "TCR") motion for attorney's fees, requesting $95,000.00. (Doc. #89). Defendant Nye County filed an opposition to the motion, (doc. #100), and plaintiff filed a reply, (doc. #104). Plaintiff's second amended complaint challenged the constitutionality of Nye County Code § 9.20.090(A), which made Nevada residency a requirement to open a brothel. (Doc. #33). A motion for partial summary judgment was granted on March 22, 2010 for the plaintiff. (Doc. #80). The law was declared by this court to be in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and accordingly, further enforcement was permanently enjoined through an injunction. Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys fees for the fees associated with the motion for partial summary judgment. Subsequently, plaintiff TCR submitted a stipulation requesting the case be dismissed "with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own court costs and attorney's fees." (Doc. #114). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, requesting $95,000.00 (Doc. # 89) be, and the same hereby is DENIED as moot. DATED this 10th day of August, 2010. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District 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?