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

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

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

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 G057264/G057420 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a writ petition by a litigant challenging certain election candidate statements even though the real parties had a pending anti-SLAPP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

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