BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST v. COLLINS, 2:13-CV-00609-APG-VCF. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150414a37
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER (DKT. #36) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . On November 8, 2013, I granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered against defendant Gene Collins. (Dkt. #23, #24.) Collins then filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which I denied. (Dkt. #34.) Collins objects to the ruling on his motion to set aside the judgment. He also argues the $17,254 fees I awarded when I granted summary judgment was excessive and he requests that I reduce that amount by half.
Summary: ORDER (DKT. #36) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . On November 8, 2013, I granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered against defendant Gene Collins. (Dkt. #23, #24.) Collins then filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which I denied. (Dkt. #34.) Collins objects to the ruling on his motion to set aside the judgment. He also argues the $17,254 fees I awarded when I granted summary judgment was excessive and he requests that I reduce that amount by half. ..
More
ORDER
(DKT. #36)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
On November 8, 2013, I granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered against defendant Gene Collins. (Dkt. #23, #24.) Collins then filed a motion to set aside the judgment, which I denied. (Dkt. #34.) Collins objects to the ruling on his motion to set aside the judgment. He also argues the $17,254 fees I awarded when I granted summary judgment was excessive and he requests that I reduce that amount by half.
Collins' objection raises the same issues I previously rejected and there is no basis for reconsideration. As to the fees, Collins did not previously challenge the fee award when he moved to set aside the judgment. Moreover, Collins presents only his subjective opinion that the amount awarded is excessive. In contrast, plaintiffs presented evidence supporting the fee request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Gene Collins' objection to order (Dkt. #36) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
