Cases: Intervenors

Appealability, Employment, Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Bevy Of Appealability Issues And Prevailing Party Issues Were Resolved By 4/1 DCA Dispute Between Former Employer And Employee Over Return And Use Of Documents On A Jump Drive

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Employment, Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Employee Did Prevail On Employer’s Contract Claims, But Lower Court’s Reduced Fee Award For Prevailing On Labor Code Claims Was No Abuse Of Discretion—Given Attorney Intervenors Did Timely Appeal And Contest Merits Based On Their Attorney’s Lien Interest In Fees/Costs Awards.             This next case, Premier Mechanical Group, Inc. v. Harvey (Edwards), Case No. D075663 […]

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Intervenor Residential Group Were Not Successful For CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Purposes Because They Lost Their Pragmatic Goal Of Stopping A Development Project

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

The Trial Judge’s Call On Which Side Achieved Its Litigation Objection Was Correct.             On June 24, 2020, we posted on Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Case Nos. B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time.  We can now report that it was partially published on July

Intervenors, Private Attorney General: Intervenor In Reverse-CPRA Litigation Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees For Failure To Satisfy Private Enforcement Element Because Its Intervention Did Not Result In A Change In School District’s Release Of Docume

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Along The Way, 4/1 DCA Did Not Endorse Marken’s Observations/Dictum On No Fee Recovery In A Reverse-CPRA Case.             In Voice of San Diego v. Teacher 1 etc., Case Nos. D075148 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2020) (unpublished), an intervenor in a reverse-California Public Records Act (reverse CPRA) case was denied CCP

Intervenors, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Trial Court’s Prevailing/Successful Party Determination For Purposes Of Costs And Attorney Fees Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Determination Based On Achieving Litigation Goal, Not On Prevailing On A Higher Percentage Of Issues.             Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the

Intervenors:  On Remand, CPUC Erred In Awarding All Requested Fees To Intervenors Without Linking To Specific Orders Or Decisions By The CPUC For Fee Entitlement Purposes

Cases: Intervenors

Another Remand To Get It Right.             Way back in April 21, 2016, we posted on New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Public Utilities Com., 246 Cal.App.4th 784 (2016), where the 1/4 DCA remanded a fee award to intervenors under Public Utility Code section 1803 for intervenors making “a substantial contribution of the adoption, in

Intervenors: CPUC Did Not Err In Determining Two Intervenors Were Eligible For Intervenor Compensation Eligibility, But Remanded To Make Sure Its Reasoning Was Proper

Cases: Intervenors

  Public Utility Code Section 1803 Was Involved, With Appellate Court Determining Its Scope.     In New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Public Utilities Comm. of California, Case No. A144005 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Apr. 19, 2016) (published), the Public Utilities Commission of California (CPUC) awarded fees and costs to two intervenors under Public Utility

Intervenors: Prevailing Intervenor Neighbor In Homeowner/HOA Lawsuit Over Permit Denial Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Of $49,650

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Intervenors

Second District, Division 6 Finds Intervenor Was In Same Position As Parties to the Lawsuit for Fee Shifting Purposes.      Here is a case involving an interven0r for our category “Intervenors”–a category that we have not posted on for some time. The case is Larson v. Las Posas Hills Homeowners Assn., Case No. B219066 (2d

Intervenor In PUC And Federal Court Proceedings Wins Grant Of Attorney’s Fees, But Not For Unsuccessful Subsequent Work Where It Took A 180 Degree Shift in Position That Was Unsuccessful

Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Eight Affirms PUC’s Decision Denying Substantial Backend Fees and a Multiplier to Intervenor.             Because attorney’s fee issues are pervasive, we now have a post of interest to lawyers who practice before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC).             The Utility Reform Network (TURN) intervened in

Can An Intervenor Be Liable for An Award of Attorney’s Fees?

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Intervenors, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Yes, With the Answer Depending on Whether the Fee Entitlement Statute Is Discretionary/Mandatory in Nature or Whether the Intervenor Is “Innocent.”             The Ninth Circuit recently explored the issue of when an intervenor may be held liable for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under two fee-shifting statutes, one arising under

Scroll to Top