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,

$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

$166,027.05 In CCP § 1021.5 Fees Awarded In Charter School Dispute.             On June 9, 2019, we posted on Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D073878 (June 4, 2019) (unpublished), which was unpublished at the time.  It involved a $166,027.05 CCP § 1021.5 to a partially successful plaintiff

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

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

$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         Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., Case No. B291036 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting example of how the financial interest prong of CCP §1021.5, the

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 April 4, 2019) (unpublished), West Park did achieve partial success in having the lower court find that the use of tax revenues to fund certain road improvement

3/28/19 Unpublished Decision Now Published—B&B Challenging Petitioner Did Prevail For Costs And CP § 1021.5 Fee Denial Was Remanded.            In a March 29, 2019 post, we discussed Friends of Spring Street v. City of Nevada, Case No. C086563 (3d Dist. March 28, 2019), which was unpublished at the time. We can now report that the