How have courts interpreted consent agreements that require a plaintiff to participate in post-judgment litigation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Natl. Parks v. County of Riverside, 81 Cal.App.4th 234, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 576 (Cal. App. 2000):
5. Turner v. Orr (11th Cir. 1986) 785 F.2d 1498, relied upon by Association, is similarly unhelpful. In that case, a consent agreement required the plaintiff to participate in post-judgment litigation and provided for the plaintiff to recover attorney fees in bringing these actions. Interpreting these provisions, the court held the plaintiff's lack of success in the post-judgment litigation was not determinative of its entitlement to attorney fees. Here, there was no similar agreement governing the recovery of attorney fees.
5. Turner v. Orr (11th Cir. 1986) 785 F.2d 1498, relied upon by Association, is similarly unhelpful. In that case, a consent agreement required the plaintiff to participate in post-judgment litigation and provided for the plaintiff to recover attorney fees in bringing these actions. Interpreting these provisions, the court held the plaintiff's lack of success in the post-judgment litigation was not determinative of its entitlement to attorney fees. Here, there was no similar agreement governing the recovery of attorney fees.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
