Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Calculation Of Benefits To Intervenors’ Retirees Was Overblown Such That The Whitley Financial Benefit/Cost Analysis Required A Remand To Award Section 1021.5 Fees To Intervenors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$588,000 Fee Request Gets A Second Study, Based On Whitley And Other Factors.            In City of Oakland v. Oakland Police and Fire Retirement System, Case No. A144653 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 29, 2018) (published), intervenors sought to recover $588,000 in attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5) and the […]

Private Attorney General: Trial Judge’s Decision To Deny Fees To Plaintiff Creating Unemployment Insurance Dispute Legal Precedent Was Proper

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Adoption of Joshua S. Justified Denial Of The Fee Request.             Plaintiff in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., Case No. C080183 (3d Dist. Nov. 27, 2018) (unpublished) won an unemployment insurance dispute, albeit on narrow grounds, before the California Supreme Court. However, the trial judge denied plaintiff’s request for private attorney general fee

Private Attorney General: Ninth Circuit Case Navigates Between Federal/State Court Claims And Determines That Plaintiffs Need A Shot At CCP § 1021.5 Private Attorney General Fee Recovery On Remand

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Federal Versus State Interests Were Involved.             We commend you to read Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Kent, No. 15-56142 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018) (published), which reversed a district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees following settlement of litigation concerning California’s Assembly Bill X3 5, which reduced the Medi-Cal

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Citizens Group Vindicating Pomona’s Proposition L Ban On Outdoor Advertising Billboards Properly Awarded CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

However, Only $75,200.40 Lodestar Out Of Requested $569,700 Lodestar/Three Times Multiplier Actually Awarded.             In Citizens For Amending Proposition L v. City of Pomona, Case No. B283740 (2d Dist., Div 4 Nov. 7, 2018) (published), the appellate court considered an award to a plaintiff public citizen’s group of $75,200.40 under CCP § 1021.5. The City

Private Attorney General: Defendants’ Vindication Of B&P § 16600 Principles, In Non-Recruiting Dispute, Was Worthy Of $169,000 Fee Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Basis Under California’s Private Attorney General Statute—CCP § 1021.5.             In AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. D071924 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 1, 2018) (published), individual defendants—former AMN “travel nurses” providing services to medical services throughout the U.S.—had to contest non-recruiting clauses in their AMN contracts when they switched over

Costs, Private Attorney General: 4/3 DCA Affirms $409,000 Fee Recovery And Additional Costs Recovery Even Though CEQA Petitioners Only Prevailed On One Out Of Close To Thirty Issues

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

Clarification Of Success Facto Under CCP § 1021.5 Is Sorely Needed In This Area.             Our local 4/3 DCA in Protect Our Homes And Hills v. County of Orange (Yorba Linda Estates), Case No. G054631 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 25, 2018) (unpublished) was an appeal from a situation where CEQA petitioners “partially” prevailed in

Private Attorney General: Trial Judge Finding That Obstruction Of Justice Misdemeanor Conviction Did Not Disqualify Commerce City Councilman And Properly Rejected His Subsequent Request For CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Action Primarily Affected His Own Interests And Fees Incurred Were Not Out Of Proportion To His Paramount Personal Stake In The Situation.             In People ex rel. City of Commerce v. Argumedo, Case Nos. B280814/285003 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 17, 2018) (partially published; fee discussion not published), City of Commerce through a quo warranto

Private Attorney General: $1.2 Million Fee Recovery Under CCP § 1021.5 Goes POOF! When Court Of Appeal Determines That Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Was Not Catalyst For Defense Withdrawal From Overall Project

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Rather, A Non-Party’s Withdrawal Motivated The Project’s Demise, Not Plaintiff’s CEQA Action.             We many times have posted on the fact that there are very distinct elements to be satisfied under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, including other requirements where a “catalyst theory” is being pursued. The next case, AG Land Trust

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Vindication Of Due Process Rights Against FPPC Was Worthy Of CCP § 1021.5 Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Obtained $221,166 In Fees, Affirmed On Appeal.             Burgess v. Fair Political Practices Comm’n (FPPC), Case No. E068433 (4h Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a plaintiff involved with a nongovernmental agency/commission was charged with financial conflict-of-interest violations by the FPPC, with the superior court granting a petition for

Private Attorney General: Hall v. DMV Opinion Now Certified For Publication

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Deals With The Issue Of Whether Plaintiff Was A Successful Party – He Was Not.             In a July 20, 2018 post, we discussed Hall v. Superior Court, a 4th District, Division 1 case which considered whether a plaintiff was a “successful party” for purposes of a private attorney general fees award under either the “primary objective” or “before

Scroll to Top