Edward Tobinick, M.D., v. The Regents of the University of California,
Judge Mary Strobel
Hearing: April 23, 2019
BS170575
Tentative Decision on Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Petitioner Edward Tobinick, M.D. (“Petitioner”) moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts of $299,890 and $8,988.41, respectively, against Respondent The Regents of the University of California (“Respondent”).
Background and Procedural History
Petitioner is a physician board-certified in internal medicine and dermatology. (Saver Decl. ¶ 3.)[1] According to the verified petition, Petitioner is a former Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA School of Medicine. Petitioner alleges that he is the founder of the Institute of Neurological Recovery in Los Angeles, and the inventor of novel uses of the drug etanercept in neurology beginning in 1999. (Pet. ¶¶ 15-18; Petitioner’s Appendix (PA) 5-6.) Petitioner claims that UCLA neurologists are developing a “direct competitor” to
Hearing Date
April 23, 2019
Type
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Edward Tobinick, M.D., v. The Regents of the University of California,
Judge Mary Strobel
Hearing: April 23, 2019
BS170575
Tentative Decision on Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Petitioner Edward Tobinick, M.D. (“Petitioner”) moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amounts of $299,890 and $8,988.41, respectively, against Respondent The Regents of the University of California (“Respondent”).
Background and Procedural History
Petitioner is a physician board-certified in internal medicine and dermatology. (Saver Decl. ¶ 3.)[1] According to the verified petition, Petitioner is a former Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA School of Medicine. Petitioner alleges that he is the founder of the Institute of Neurological Recovery in Los Angeles, and the inventor of novel uses of the drug etanercept in neurology beginning in 1999. (Pet. ¶¶ 15-18; Petitioner’s Appendix (PA) 5-6.) Petitioner claims that UCLA neurologists are developing a “direct competitor” to