Kearney v. Foley and Lardner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)’s fourteen-day timing requirement was applicable even though fee application was based on California substantive law but granting defendants’ motion for an extension of time because of excusable neglect
• denying award of fees 2 where “defendants’ arguments concern[ed] separate and distinct defenses . . . [including] section 3 1983 raised in the motion to dismiss.”
• “[M]ere common issues of 15 fact are insufficient to award all fees when legal theories do not overlap or are not inextricably 16 intertwined.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).