Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General, Civil Rights: Hawkins Opinion Now Partially Published As To The Discussions On Sufficiency Of Evidence of Retaliation And Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

September 9, 2019 Unpublished Decision Now Partially Published.             On September 9, 2019, we posted on then unpublished decision in Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles, which dealt with the Bane Act/Whistleblower Retaliation victories, and $1,054,286.88 attorney’s fees award, obtained by two fired Department of Transportation hearing examiners who had sued the City of Los […]

Private Attorney General, Civil Rights: Plaintiffs’ Bane Act/Whistleblower Retaliation Victories Justified An Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$1,054,286.88 Was Fee Award Affirmed Against Los Angeles.            Two fired Department of Transportation hearing examiners sued the City of Los Angeles under the Bane Act and for whistleblower retaliation, claiming that the City pressured them to change adverse decisions in hearings on parking citations.  They won their claims before a jury which awarded them

Private Attorney General: $93,000 In Appeal Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Affirmed For Work On Prior Appeal Where Partial Reversal Resulted In Three Other EIR Deficiencies Identified For Correction By Orange County

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Judge Reduced Fee Request By About 20%.             In on-going CEQA litigation between nonprofit citizen groups and a residential developer over a Yorba Linda project, the lower court initially found merit only on a greenhouse emission issue out of a myriad of EIR challenges in a proceeding involving Orange County and the developer.  However,

Private Attorney General: Extremely Destitute Plaintiff Winning Unemployment Benefits In Two Prior Appellate Decisions And Accompanying Litigation Was Improperly Cut Off From Fee Recovery For First Phase Of The Litigation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$365,660.94 Award For $1 Million In Requested Work Was Not Enough Given The Nature Of The Dispute.             Equities do matter in decisions, and Robles v. Employment Development Dept., Case No. A148803 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 1, 2019) (published) is no exception in the private attorney general fee area.             Plaintiff earlier had won

Private Attorney General: First District, Division 4 DCA Affirms $558,052.50 In Favor Of Developer Partially Challenging Park Impact Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Limited Reversal Did Not Require A Remand, With The Appellate Court Showing Financial Incentives Were Not Outweighed By Financial Burdens To Challenging Developer.             Plaintiff developer, whose project was up in the air, challenged a City of Alameda ordinance under which park impact fees of $1.6 million might be imposed on the future project, if

Private Attorney General: $166,027.05, Almost Fully Requested CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award, Affirmed On Appeal In Charter School Geographical Territory Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Section 1021.5 Was Satisfied Based On Abuse Of Discretion Deferential Review Standard.             CCP § 1021.5, California’s private attorney general statute, has several elements which must be satisfied.  On appeal from a fee award or fee denial, the issues present sometimes purely legal, mixed legal/factual issues, or purely factual issues for review purposes.  Which category

Private Attorney General: Public Works Contractor On 23 Projects, Although Obtaining Reversal Of Interference Case At California Supreme Court Level, Had A Significant Financial Interest So As Not To Recover Section 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$281,577 Paid For Public Work Contractor Appeal Work Did Not Begin To Match Potential Fallout If Things Went Differently.            Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., Case No. B291036 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting example of how the financial interest prong of CCP §1021.5, the

Homeowner Associations, Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Defendant Homeowners Winning A Tree Dispute With Another Homeowner Neighbor Rightfully Denied Attorney’s Fees Under CC&Rs, Civil Code Section 1717, And Private Attorney General Statute

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

However, A Dissenting Justice Would Have Found Fee Entitlement Under CC&Rs And Section 1717.            The next case, Shah v. Ross, Case No. B286783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 April 25, 2019) (unpublished), involved a situation where defendants/homeowner neighbors won a tree dispute initiated by fellow plaintiff homeowner. Defendants then sought fees under a CC&Rs fees clause,

Private Attorney General: $163,136 Private Attorney General Fee Award To Plaintiff Was Affirmed By Fifth District

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

City’s Challenges For Reversal Were Unsuccessful Under Abuse Of Discretion Review.            In City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. & Friends. Case No. G075834 (5th Dist. April 4, 2019) (unpublished), West Park did achieve partial success in having the lower court find that the use of tax revenues to fund certain road improvement

Scroll to Top