Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rupard v. Berryhill, 3:08-CV-363-FDW-DCK. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20180629f92 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff's "Application For Attorney's Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act" (Document No. 16) filed June 27, `. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), counsel mu
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff's "Application For Attorney's Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act" (Document No. 16) filed June 27, `. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), counsel must show that they have conferred, and set forth which issues remain unresolved. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion that indicates the parties have consulted.

It appears that Plaintiff received a fully favorable decision on May 20, 2010, not August 2, 2010. (Document No. 30-1). If Plaintiff renews her request for fees, she should explain the eight (8) year delay in making such a request.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Application For Attorney's Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act" (Document No. 16) is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJDUCE.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer