Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 28, 2022

Larach-Cohen v. David C. Banks

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:19-cv-07623-LTS-SDA
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Larach-Cohen v. Banks, Judge Swain denied parts of the fee motion and dismissed the remaining pendency claim.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ requests for attorneys’ fees and their remaining pendency claim were affected; the defendants were parties to the case.

What happened

In Larach-Cohen v. Banks, the plaintiffs asked for attorneys’ fees, and a magistrate judge recommended denying that request and dismissing their remaining pendency claim.

No one objected to the recommendation. After reviewing it for clear error, the district court found none and adopted it in full.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the fee request with prejudice for fees and costs from this action, denied it without prejudice for fees and costs from the underlying administrative proceeding, and dismissed the remaining pendency claim.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Larach-Cohen v. David C. Banks · No. 1:19-cv-07623-LTS-SDA
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 28, 2022

Background

Magistrate Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees be denied and that the plaintiffs’ remaining pendency claims be dismissed. The district court received no objections.

Court’s Review

Because no timely objection was filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees with prejudice insofar as it sought fees and costs connected to this action. It denied the motion without prejudice insofar as it sought fees and costs connected to the underlying administrative proceeding. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ remaining pendency claim. The order resolved docket entry no. 89, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.