Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

However, Portion Of Fee Award Awarded Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Reversed On Appeal Because It Was Not An “Opposing Party” Under CCP § 1021.5, Meaning City Bore All Of The Fee Exposure. In Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F090084 et al. (5th Dist. Oct. 8, 2026) (unpublished), a

Majority Reversed And Remanded In A 2-1 Decision Based On Free Speech Principles, While A Dissenting Justice Found No Abuse Of Discretion In The Lower Court’s Fee Denial. The 2/6 DCA, in a 2-1 opinion in Grover H2O v. City of Grover Beach, Case No. B346833 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 2, 2026) (unpublished), had divergent

Vindication Of Negotiating Rights For Los Angeles Employees Was An Important Public Benefit On August 6, 2026, we posted on City of Los Angeles v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Case No. B336981 (2d Dist., Div. 7 filed July 30, 2026).  On the fee issue, it held that Coalition vindicated bargaining rights for L.A. employees, a significant

$234,344 Fee Request, Denied By The Lower Court, Was Sustained On Appeal. In Bulkin v. Medical Board of Cal., Case No. B350396 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 17, 2026) (unpublished), a physician/surgeon did obtain a prior unpublished successful appeal in which the lower court was directed to remove from the Medical Board’s records a post

Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard. Although we do not know the amount of the fees awarded in City of Los Angeles v. IBEW, Local 18, Case No. B336981 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 30, 2026) (unpublished), we can report that a CCP § 1021.5 private attorney

Private Attorney General Statutes Justified The Award. In a case garnering attention in a May 1, 2026 article “Judge says city must pay $1M in court fees” published in the May 1, 2026 edition of The Orange County Register, Orange County Superior Court Judge Lindsey E. Martinez did award four organizations, in a tentative ruling,

After Some Lodestar Reductions And Grant Of A Positive 1.3 Multiplier, About $857,000 Was Petitioner’s Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.  This case involved a petitioner’s challenge in a public interest litigation to the Department of Pesticide Regulations’ need to reevaluate five rodenticides.  Department alone was not involved, with real parties in interest and intervenors claiming

Housing Accountability Act Standards Can Be Factored Into The Equation, With Trade Union Affiliations Not Showing It Made A Difference On The Financial Cost/Benefit Factor. In Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility v. City of Inglewood, Case No. B345195 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2026) (unpublished), petitioner won a CEQA challenge based on Housing Accountability

Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst. As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to.  It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution. Howard v.