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 Nov. 27, 2018) (unpublished) won an unemployment insurance dispute, albeit on narrow grounds, before the California Supreme Court.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 […]

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

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

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

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

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             Burgess v. Fair Political Practices Comm’n (FPPC), Case No. E068433 (4h Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 30, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a plaintiff involved with a nongovernmental agency/commission was charged with financial conflict-of-interest violations by the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

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