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 […]

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 G057264/G057420 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a writ petition by a litigant challenging certain election candidate statements even though the real parties had a pending anti-SLAPP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

Opinion Dealt with Private Attorney General Issues.             On February 26, 2020, we posted on the February 24 unpublished decision in Save the Agoura Cornell Knoll v. City of Agoura Hills, Case No. B292246 (2d Dist., Div. 7).  We can now report that it was certified for publication on March 17, 2020.  The decision held

Plaintiff’s Hope For A Fees Award Now Depends On Prevailing Party Determination Under A “Catalyst Theory.”             This next case includes an interesting discussion of fee recovery under a catalyst theory – a factual basis for fee recovery where a plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party by achieving its litigation objectives through the

CUP/Oak Tree Dispute Only Producing Non-Merits Administrative Stay Did Not Qualify For CCP § 1021.5 Fees.              On February 20, 2020, we posted on Canyon Crest Conservancy v. County of Los Angeles (Kuhn), Case No. B290379 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2020), unpublished at the time.  We can now report that it was published

Strict Adherence To Attorney General Notice Requirements Does Not Preclude Fee Awards, And Limited Partner Was Hit With Fees Because He Held Himself Out As Property Owner And Participated In Litigation As Real Party In Interest. Gigantic oak tree on the Tejon Ranch, Kern county, Calif.; Indian man, woman and small girl in front of

$289,544 In Fees Correctly Denied By The Trial Judge On Appeal.             In Canyon Crest Conservancy v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B290379 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a minor conditional use permit and oak tree permit in connection with constructing a single-family house in undeveloped property in Los