Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Validation Action Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Did Not Entitle Victor To Private Attorney General Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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              In City of Upland v. The Inland Oversight Committee, Case No. E073768 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished), City sought through a validation action to validate its agreement to sell part of Memorial Park to San Antonio […]

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Unilateral Fee-Shifting Clause In DFEH’s Favor Preempted An Award Of Private Attorney General Fees To Prevailing Defendants

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Specific Statute Prevailed Over More General One As Far As Fee Entitlement.             When two fee-shifting statutes collide, they sometimes can be reconciled but sometimes cannot—the latter was the conclusion in Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., Case No. F077802 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (published).             There, defendants prevailed in

Private Attorney General: Unincorporated Association In Election Contest Challenge Was A De Facto Intervenor With Standing To Seek Section 1021.5 Fees As A Successful Party

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: Award Of $387,593 In Attorney Fees And $15,771 In Costs To Plaintiffs Who Dismissed Their Lawsuit Was Proper And Consistent With California Policy Under Catalyst Theory

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

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

Scroll to Top