Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: $142,148 Fee Award Against Limited Partnership Property Owner And One Of Its Limited Partners Affirmed On Appeal Despite Petitioners’ Failure To Properly Notice Attorney General With Its First Amended Petition

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Only Obtaining A Non-Merits Stay In A CEQA Action, In A Dismissed Case, Was Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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             In Canyon Crest Conservancy v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B290379 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 19, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a minor conditional use permit and oak tree permit in connection with constructing a single-family house in undeveloped property in Los

Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General: Private Attorney General Fee Denial Affirmed Based On Litigant’s Failure To File Appellate Opening Brief And Small Fees Award Against Governmental Entity Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Did Not Prevail Against Governmental Entity So That $7,500 Government Code Section 800 Award Went POOF! On Appeal.             Ya know, appellate proceedings can really change results at the trial court level at different junctures of a case.  1041 20th Street, LLC v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., Case No. B295812 (2d Dist., Div.

Private Attorney General: Prevailing Petitioner In Drunk Driving Out-Of-State Conviction Case Was Properly Denied $240,459.72 In Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Relatively Small Class Of Individuals Involved, Plus An Attenuated Public Interest, Justified Denial Of Fees.             In Villarreal v. Gordon, Case No. B291027 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2019) (unpublished), certified for publication on January 10, 2020, a petitioner prevailed on a mandate writ petition by which the DMV was not going to give

Private Attorney General: Fourth District Reverses $53,165.95 Section 1021.5 Attorney Fees Award To Construction Company That Obtained Writ Of Mandate And Injunction Against $149,200 Assessment Imposed By Division of Labor Standards Enforcement

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Dissenting Justice Found Fee Award Appropriate As Successful Writ Petition Conferred A Significant Benefit To The Public Or At Least To The Large Class Of California Public Works Contractors.             In Hobbs Construction, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, Case No. D074385 (4th Dist., Div. 1 November 22, 2019) (unpublished), the Division of Labor

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/8 DCA Follows Earlier 2/1 DCA Opinion In Recognizing That Successful Requesting Party/Intervenor Was Entitled To Fees In A California Public Records Act Proceeding And A Reverse-CPRA Action

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

End Result Was A San Diego Newspaper Garnered Almost $149,000 In Attorney’s Fees After The Judgment Modified To Allow For Additional Reply Brief Work.            In City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. B272169 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 19, 2019) (published), a San Diego newspaper which successfully intervened

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

Scroll to Top