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
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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2020) (unpublished), an intervenor in a reverse-California Public Records Act (reverse CPRA) case was denied CCP
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 Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the
Real Party Has Another Crack At A $86,000 Fee Request Under Private Attorney General And SLAPP Statutes. On May 21, 2020, we posted on Sandlin v. McLaughlin, Case Nos. G057264 et seq. (4th Dist., Dist. 3 May 19, 2020 unpublished; certified for publication on June 17, 2020). There, the 4/3 DCA reversed and remanded
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 G057264/G057420 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a writ petition by a litigant challenging certain election candidate statements even though the real parties had a pending anti-SLAPP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
Petitioner’s Limited Success – Winning Only 1 Of Its 13 Arguments – Was Crucial Factor In Substantial Reduction From Requested $1,440,713 In Fees To $94,698.33 Even After 1.5 Multiplier Was Applied. The Sacramento-San Juaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 was enacted to address the problems and challenges facing the Delta – the most valuable
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
