Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Allocation, Multipliers, Private Attorney General: Close To $3 Million In Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiffs/Respondents Against CalPERS Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Significant Benefit Was Conferred, And No Need For Apportionment Where Successful And Unsuccessful Claims Were Inextricably Intertwined. In Liu v. Bd. of Adm. of CalPERS, Case No. B341221 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 29, 2026) (unpublished), lead plaintiff/respondent Liu on appeal, a class member of CalPERS, filed a CCP § 1094.5 writ mandate petition, on

Deadlines, Private Attorney General: 1/4 DCA Holds That Fee Motion Is Timely Filed If Filed 2 Court Days After Electronic Service Of Notice Of Entry of Judgment

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

Although A Validation Action Is Involved, The Broader Reasoning Gives Some Extension Days Past A Jurisdictional Appeal Deadline For Civil Appeals In General. Alameda County Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of Oakland, Case No. A172609 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 28, 2026) (partially published, on timeliness of fee motion) involved a real party in interest

Private Attorney General: Reduced Fee Award To Prevailing Party, Based On Limited Success And Overlitigation, Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prevailing Party Only Obtained Petition Relief Based On General Prayer Clause, With Lower Court Granting A Remedy To The Prevailing Party–$53,679.63 Out Of $322,798.50 Fee Request Was The Ultimate Award.   Prevailing party in Seligman Liberty Station, LLC v. City of San Diego, Case No. C101420 (3d Dist. Oct. 23, 2026; posted Oct. 26, 2026) (unpublished)

Private Attorney General: $528,094.50 Fee Award To Nonprofit Plaintiff Against City Of Fresno Affirmed On Appeal In Dispute Over Validity of Measure P

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 Oct. 8, 2026) (unpublished), a

Private Attorney General: Petitioner Winning Writ Of Mandate On City Clerk’s Removal Of Recall Petition Allegations Against Councilmember Was Erroneously Denied Private Attorney General Fees Based On The Case Not Providing A Significant Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: City Of Los Angeles v. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers Opinion Is Now Published

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: Litigant Obtaining Relief For Himself As Far As Clarifying An Arbitration Award On His Medical License Was Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because It Did Not Vindicate A Broader Interest—Just His Interest

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$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: Coalition Of City Employees/Union Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees, Not Disclosed In Amount, Based On A Failure To Meaningfully Bargain Over A Labor Dispute—You Labor Attorneys Know The Importance Of This

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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: Orange County Superior Court Judge Awards $959,853.73 To Four Organizations Prevailing In California Freedom To Read Act Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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,

Private Attorney General: Real Parties In Interest And Intervenor Trade Association, Alleging A Direct Pecuniary Interest In Vindicating State Department Policies Which Were Not Upheld In Rodenticides Pesticides Case, Were Jointly And Severally Responsible For Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Petitioner

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Scroll to Top