§ 151
- Citation
- § 151
- Parent Document
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2009-10-09
Other Sections in This Document (181)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (2009)
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 1437f
- § 982
- § 982
- § 982
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
- § 151
Full Text
823 charsMorton further asserts that the district court should not have considered the leases because they were not entered at the summary judgment stage and proven as damages. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(A) requires that “[a] claim for attorney’s fees ... must be made by motion unless the substantive law requires those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.” The district court correctly found that California substantive law did not so require, a conclusion evidenced by California Civil Code § 1717(a) itself, which provides that “[Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.” Therefore, it was not error for the district court to consider as evidence leases entered for the first time on a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees and costs.