Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 In Bulkin v. Medical Board of Cal., Case No. B350396 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 17, 2026) (unpublished), a physician/surgeon did obtain a prior unpublished successful appeal in which the lower court was directed to remove from the Medical Board’s records a post […]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 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 30, 2026) (unpublished), we can report that a CCP § 1021.5 private attorney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

Private Attorney General: $165,072.50 Attorney’s Fees Award On CEQA Win To Prevailing Litigant Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021 Catalyst Fee Recovery Not Available To Plaintiffs Where The Other Side Voluntarily Provided Relief Only After Plaintiffs Had Lost Relief In A Prior Merits Judgment

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Found That Plaintiffs Could Not Meet The Successful Parties Element, Even Under A Catalyst Theory. In Physicians for Social Responsibility – L.A. v. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. C100487 (3d Dist. Mar. 4, 2026) (published), the appellate court affirmed a denial of private attorney general fees, under a catalyst theory, where the

Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiffs Obtained Revisions Under Certain Deceptive Contracts, They Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Of $1.5 Million

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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.

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Awarding Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Without Considering Specific Factors Outlined In The Housing Accountability Act

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$1,286,144.37 Fee Award Against City Reversed And Remanded.  Coalition of Pacificans for An Updated Plan v. City Council of the City of Pacifica, Case No. A170704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2025) (partially published; substantive fee discussion published) stands for the proposition that in fashioning a private attorney general fee award under CCP §

Private Attorney General: Where Prior Prevailing Parties Had Their Rulings Abrogated By Legislative Action Resulting In A Reversal Of Prior Opinions, They Were Not Successful Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prior Opinions In Plaintiffs’ Favor Had No Precedential Value. In Make UC A Good Neighbor et al. v. Regents of University of California, Case No. A172510 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2025) (published), the appellate court affirmed that plaintiffs were not “successful” parties for private attorney general purposes despite winning favorable appellate precedents at

Private Attorney General: Fee Award Denied To CEQA Plaintiffs After Remand Of A Prior Published Opinion Reversing A Fee Denial And Remanding For A Restudy

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Failed To Meet Their Ultimate Burden Of Showing The Litigation Was A Catalyst For What Happened Relating To The WaterFix Project. In an earlier opinion, the Third District reversed the denial of an attorney’s fees award to CEQA litigants proceeding on a catalyst theory under CCP § 1021.5, determining that it could not be

Scroll to Top