SUBJECT: (1) Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Moving Party: Defendants Ibiere Seck and Seck Law, P.C.
Resp. Party: Plaintiffs The Cochran Law Firm and Dunn Law, APC
SUBJECT: (2) Motion for Summary Judgment
Moving Party: Plaintiffs The Cochran Law Firm and Dunn Law, APC
Resp. Party: Defendants Ibiere Seck and Seck Law, P.C.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,012.78.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND:
This is an action for declaratory relief and abuse of process brought by employers, The Cochran Firm California, against its previous at-will employee Ibiere Seck. Plaintiffs, The Cochran Firm California and Dunn Law, APC dba “The Cochran Firm California,” allege that Ibiere Seck departed the firm as of December 31, 2018, taking certain clients previously retained by Plaintiffs with her in her private practice. Plaintiff assert that “the need for declara
Hearing Date
July 13, 2020
Type
Other Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUBJECT: (1) Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Moving Party: Defendants Ibiere Seck and Seck Law, P.C.
Resp. Party: Plaintiffs The Cochran Law Firm and Dunn Law, APC
SUBJECT: (2) Motion for Summary Judgment
Moving Party: Plaintiffs The Cochran Law Firm and Dunn Law, APC
Resp. Party: Defendants Ibiere Seck and Seck Law, P.C.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,012.78.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.
The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND:
This is an action for declaratory relief and abuse of process brought by employers, The Cochran Firm California, against its previous at-will employee Ibiere Seck. Plaintiffs, The Cochran Firm California and Dunn Law, APC dba “The Cochran Firm California,” allege that Ibiere Seck departed the firm as of December 31, 2018, taking certain clients previously retained by Plaintiffs with her in her private practice. Plaintiff assert that “the need for declara