Federal Versus State Interests Were Involved.
We commend you to read Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Kent, No. 15-56142 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018) (published), which reversed a district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees following settlement of litigation concerning California’s Assembly Bill X3 5, which reduced the Medi-Cal rate of reimbursement of healthcare providers by 10%. In a 3-0 opinion (with a concurrence), the Ninth Circuit determined that despite all kinds of federal supremacy arguments, the dispute and settlement agreement involved state claims such that plaintiffs should be allowed to seek prevailing party fees under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5. This is one for all of us who like federal versus state conflicts on fee issues to read, although it is very narrow in its application given the unique set of facts which were involved.