Hughley v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union

Second Circuit

Hughley v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union

231 F.3d 889, 2000 WL 1676543

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 2000

DocketDocket No. 00-7404

StatusPublished

This text of 231 F.3d 889 (Hughley v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hughley v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union, 231 F.3d 889, 2000 WL 1676543 (2d Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendants Claude Ferrara et al. appeal from an opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Haight, District Judge), dated March 7, 2000, which denied their motion for attorney fees and costs. On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to fees and costs under common benefit, promotion of union democracy and state law theories. For the reasons stated by the district court, we find that defendants are not entitled to attorney fees and costs. We hereby adopt parts II.C, III, and IV.2 of the district court’s thorough opinion and affirm for the reasons stated therein. See Doyle v. Turner, 90 F.Supp.2d 311 (S.D.N.Y.2000).

The order of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendants Claude Ferrara et al. appeal from an opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Haight, District Judge), dated March 7, 2000, which denied their motion for attorney fees and costs. On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to fees and costs under common benefit, promotion of union democracy and state law theories. For the reasons stated by the district court, we find that defendants are not entitled to attorney fees and costs. We hereby adopt parts II.C, III, and IV.2 of the district court’s thorough opinion and affirm for the reasons stated therein. See Doyle v. Turner, 90 F.Supp.2d 311 (S.D.N.Y.2000).

The order of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F.3d 889, 2000 WL 1676543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughley-v-local-1199-drug-hospital-health-care-employees-union-ca2-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack