Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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             Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the […]

Private Attorney General: Second District Reverses Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To University of California Student Who Successfully Sought To Have University Comply With Its Own Policies

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

Private Attorney General: San Juan Capistrano Competing Hotel Developer Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Developer’s “Upside” Did Not Vindicate A Broader Public Interest And Developer Had A Large Personal Stake In The Litigation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General, SLAPP: $86,000 Requested Fee Award In SLAPP And Private Attorney General Contexts Had To Be Remanded For A Possible Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 G057264/G057420 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 19, 2020) (unpublished), a trial judge denied a writ petition by a litigant challenging certain election candidate statements even though the real parties had a pending anti-SLAPP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

Private Attorney General: Intervener Media Organizations In Reverse-PRA Action Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Trial Court Improperly Conditioned Their Intervention On Striking Their Requests For Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Lodestar, Private Attorney General: Third District Affirms Approximate 93% Reduction To Petitioner’s Requested Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 Fee Award

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: 1/5 DCA Reverses And Remands Section 1021.5 Fee Award Of $265,783.90 To CEQA Plaintiff For Reconsideration After Legislature Passed Bill That Vacated Plaintiff’s Mandamus Petition Win

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Scroll to Top