$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 v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D073878 (June 4, 2019) (unpublished), which was unpublished at the time.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 Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc., Case No. B291036 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting example of how the financial interest prong of CCP §1021.5, the
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 The next case, Shah v. Ross, Case No. B286783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 April 25, 2019) (unpublished), involved a situation where defendants/homeowner neighbors won a tree dispute initiated by fellow plaintiff homeowner.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,
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 April 4, 2019) (unpublished), West Park did achieve partial success in having the lower court find that the use of tax revenues to fund certain road improvement
Plaintiff Did Not Obtain Its Primary Litigation Objective Such That Fee Award Was Abuse Of Discretion; Prevailing Defendant’s Costs Request Was Improperly Stricken Because It Prevailed. San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego & San Diego Tourism Marketing Dist. Corp., Case No. D072181 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 4, 2019) (unpublished) shows
3/28/19 Unpublished Decision Now Published—B&B Challenging Petitioner Did Prevail For Costs And CP § 1021.5 Fee Denial Was Remanded.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
Successful Party And Significant Benefit Prongs Met, But Remanded To See If Financial Burden Element Met Under Section 1021.5. The Third District in Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, Case No. C086563 (3d Dist. March 28, 2019) (unpublished) had found in an earlier appeal that petitioners had properly challenged real parties’ ability to
No Abuse Of Discretion Shown, With No Binding Requirement To Allocate Or Reduce For Some Lack Of Success. City of Walnut v. Mt. San Antonio Community College Dist., Case No. B287619 (2d Dist., Div. 5 March 15, 2019) (unpublished) is a situation where City petitioned to stop work on a solar energy general facility
