Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Denied A $613,525 Code Of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 Fees Request By Plaintiff Achieving Limited Success

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Action Did Not Result In A Significant Benefit To The General Public.             Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 does not guarantee fee entitlement to a successful party in an action resulting in the enforcement of an important right affecting public interest.  Rather, section 1021.5 includes a three-prong prerequisite for an attorney fee award: […]

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 B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time.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

Private Attorney General: Doe v. Regents Of The University Of Cal. Decision Now Published

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Narrowly Focusing On Plaintiff’s Personal Interest In Bringing Suit, Rather Than Significance Of Constitutional Due Process Rights Effectuated By Plaintiff’s Action, Was Error For Purposes Of Fee Determination Under Section 1021.5.             In our June 10, 2020 post, we discussed the case of Doe v. Regents of the University of Cal., Case No. B293153

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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2020) (unpublished), an intervenor in a reverse-California Public Records Act (reverse CPRA) case was denied CCP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

Private Attorney General: Second District Reverses Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To University of California Student Who Successfully Sought To Have University Comply With Its Own Policies

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Court Failed To Recognize The Significance Of The Constitutional Due Process Rights Effectuated By Plaintiff’s Action.             A party seeking attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 must show that: (1) he/she/it is the successful party in an action; (2) the action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting public

Private Attorney General: San Juan Capistrano Competing Hotel Developer Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Developer’s “Upside” Did Not Vindicate A Broader Public Interest And Developer Had A Large Personal Stake In The Litigation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Although Factual In Nature, Case Demonstrates How Litigants Need To Be Pragmatic In This Area Of Fee Recovery With Respect To Expectations.             Co-contributor Mike lives in South Orange County.  He can attest to a lot of public attention devoted toward renovating and bringing life to the San Juan Capistrano Mission area. There is vibrant

Private Attorney General, SLAPP: $86,000 Requested Fee Award In SLAPP And Private Attorney General Contexts Had To Be Remanded For A Possible Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Election Candidate Issue Was One Of Public Interest.             In Sandlin v. McLaughlin, Case Nos. G057264/G057420 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a writ petition by a litigant challenging certain election candidate statements even though the real parties had a pending anti-SLAPP motion.  Later, the lower court denied the

Private Attorney General: Intervener Media Organizations In Reverse-PRA Action Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Trial Court Improperly Conditioned Their Intervention On Striking Their Requests For Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

This Condition For Intervention By Intervenors Of Right Was Unreasonable In Nature.             It now seems established that attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, are available to intervening parties in a reverse-Public Records Act (PRA) case.  (Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 22 Cal.App.5th 147, 159 (2018) [discussed

Scroll to Top