Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]Correcting myself. Liman did note that he may have to apportion the fees, i.e. limit to just the parts of the motion related to defamation. From footnote 4 of the decision: The Court makes no findings or holdings at this juncture with respect to the appropriate measure of fees for the subject of this motion: Lively’s defense of the Wayfarer Parties’ complaint in the Wayfarer Action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C) (“The court may decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of services.”). The ultimate fee determination may depend in part on “apportionment principles,” including the extent to which fees were incurred on issues common to claims for which attorneys’ fees are provided by statute and claims for which they are not. See Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273, 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
