Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Public Interest And Significant Benefit Prongs Of Private Attorney General Statute Must Be Satisfied Independently.             In Burgess v. Coronado Unified School Dist., Case No. D076263 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2020) (published), a reverse action under the California Public Records Act (PRA) was filed by a news outlet employee to enjoin District from […]

The Litigation Did Not Confer A Significant Benefit On A Large Class Of Persons And The Lack Of Substantial Evidence Necessary To Support University’s Administrative Decision Did Not Constitute Evidence Of Arbitrary And Capricious Conduct.             In Doe v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. A158704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 November 30, 2020)

Losing City Was Free to Go Forward With The Sale, So The Victory Was Pyrrhic.              In City of Upland v. The Inland Oversight Committee, Case No. E073768 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished), City sought through a validation action to validate its agreement to sell part of Memorial Park to San Antonio

Fifth District Enunciates Test For Unincorporated Associations.             In Vosburg v. County of Fresno, Case No. F078081 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (partially published; fees standing issue published), an unincorporated association representing mental patients in a representative capacity sought to recover $44,218.13 in attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, California’s private attorney

Plaintiffs Filed A Class-Action Lawsuit After Making Several Pre-Litigation Attempts At Settlement, And Dismissed The Case After Achieving Their Main Litigation Objective.             Skinner v. Ken’s Foods, Inc., Case No. B299907 (2d. Dist., Div. 6 August 21, 2020) (published) has a nice discussion on the requirements for a Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 fee

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:

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