Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Taxpayer Properly Awarded Fee Of $116,647.47 For Prevailing In Political Reform Act Action

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

60% Total Positive Multiplier And Lodestar Awards Were No Abuse Of Discretion.             California’s Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest.  There are liability provisions which allow a prosecutor or taxpayer to challenge the particular

Poof!, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Trial Court Win Of $289,908 In Attorney’s Fees And $1,963 In Costs Goes POOF! On Appeal As Plaintiff Failed To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Under The California Environmental Quality Act

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

Plaintiff’s Failure To Object To The Project Before The City Council Approved It Meant Plaintiff Lacked Standing To Challenge The City’s Project Approval In Court         In Turn Down the Lights v. City of Monterey, Case Nos. H044656/H045556 (6th Dist., February 28, 2019) (unpublished), Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate on City’s determination that

Employment, Private Attorney General: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Nor Err In Denying Fees And Costs To Plaintiffs Under PAGA

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

Plaintiffs Prevailed At Trial On Their California Labor Code Section 1102.5 Claims, But Failed To Pursue Their PAGA Section 2699 Claim, Thereby Sealing Their Fate For PAGA-Related Fees and Costs         In order to prevail on a PAGA-related fees and costs motion, a plaintiff first has to pursue a PAGA claim and prevail.         In

Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Judge’s Reduction Of Requested Appellate Fees From $630,000 To $140,000 Was No Abuse Of Discretion, Except For 40% Reduction Based On Calculating In Attorney’s Interest In Financial Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Hourly Rates Were Too High For Sacramento Venue, Laffey Matrix Could Be Used, And Hours Property Reduced For Inflated Request.            In Limon v. Dept. of Finance, Case No. C082501 (3d Dist. Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished), as it often times does, the likely final fight involved the award of appellate fees to prevailing plaintiffs in

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Where Trial Judge Only Struck Private Attorney General Entitlement Language Inserted In A Proposed Judgment, But Did Not Preclude A Further Fee Motion, Appeal Of The “Striking” Action Was Premature

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

There Was No Ruling To Be Appealed From.             In Kottler v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B278276 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (unpublished), next door neighbors successfully obtained mandamus over a zoning adjustment made in favor of another neighbor. Petitioners submitted a proposed judgment indicating that they were entitled to fees

Private Attorney General: CEQA Plaintiffs Obtaining Mandamus To Require Preparation Of An EIR Entitled Them To An Award Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Public Benefit Was Clear When CEQA Policies Were Vindicated.             In Oakdale Groundwater Alliance v. Oakdale Irrig. Dist., Case No. F077281 (5th Dist. Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished), CEQA plaintiffs obtained mandamus requiring that District prepare a full-blown environmental impact report (EIR), rather than just a negative declaration, and prepare a better study on the environmental

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

Scroll to Top