Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Class Action, Private Attorney General: $100,000 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award To Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel In Foreign Driver’s Case With Limited Success Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Sought $1.7 Million (Inclusive Of Multiplier), But Went Home With Much Less.             Sancandi v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B268839 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 31, 2018) (unpublished) is a case which illustrates the principles that limited success in a non-certified class action, combined with an inflated request by the marginally-winning two […]

Private Attorney General: UCSD Undergraduate Student’s Successful Challenge To One Aspect Of UCSD Hearing Process Justified $99,090 Fee Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Court Did Reject Request For Much More In Fees, As Well As Request For A Multiplier.             University of California at San Diego (UCSD) had a policy and procedure, when an undergraduate student challenges a decision of violating the university’s academic integrity policy by an internal board and appeal to the Council of Provosts, to

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Plaintiff Was Not Successful So As To Be Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because He Did Not Achieve His Primary Objective And Did Not Prevail Under “Before And After Test” For A Successful Party

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

Plaintiff Wanted Reinstatement of His Driver’s License, But That Did Not Occur—He Only Got A New DMV Remand Revocation Hearing Based On DUI Charges; He Also Did Not Prevail For A Smaller Fee Award Under Government Code Section 800.             California’s private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, has a multi-prong test

Private Attorney General: Fifth District, In Unpublished Opinion, Has A Nice Discussion Of Future Speculative Financial Benefits Which Do Not Disqualify Litigants From Entitlement To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Under Whitley

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fee Award Only In Favor Of One Litigant Had To Be Remanded To Award Fees To Two Closely-Aligned Litigants Given That The Lower Court Appeared To Apply Wrong Legal Standard.             This is must reading for public interest attorneys on both sides, because it has a fairly elaborate discussion of what type of speculative, future financial

Private Atty General, Special Fee Shifting Statute: 2/1 DCA’s Reversal Of Settlement Agrmnt/Prop. “A” Ruling Meant 1 Nonprofit Plaintiff’s Fee Award Went POOF! And Fee Award Against Another Nonprofit Plaintiff Reversed/Remanded Under CC§815.7(d)

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

Reason For Civil Code Section 8157(d) Reversal Was That Winning Respondent Needed To Show That Nonprofit’s Action Was Frivolous, Unreasonable, And Groundless Under Christiansburg.              Proposition “A” Protective Assn. v. Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Case Nos. B272381/B281923 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where conservation authority sued an oil company

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Nonprofit Properly Granted $76,930 In Attorney’s Fees Under CCP § 1021.5 Based Upon Catalyst Theory In Proposition 65 Lawsuit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

1/3 DCA Has Nice Discussion Of Fee Entitlement Under Catalyst Theory.            Center for Environmental Health v. Nutraceutical Corp., Case No. A148208 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2018) (unpublished) is must reading for litigants and attorneys on the ambit and limitations of the catalyst theory which will give rise to attorney’s fees entitlement under California’s

Private Attorney General: 1/4 DCA, In Unpublished Opinion, Explores Many Issues And The Causation Element Of CCP § 1021.5’s Catalyst Theory

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs/Intervenors Obtain Reversal Of Lower Court’s Fee Denial As A Matter Of Law.            The 1/4 DCA, in Epstein v. Schwarzenegger, Case Nos. A147092/A147366 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2018) (unpublished), recently issued an opinion in an interesting case on a publicized event which constitutes must reading for practitioners prosecuting or defending fee requests under

Employment, Private Attorney General: $996,232.72 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 Was No Abuse Of Discretion Where $227,922.43 Restitutionary Award And Injunction Relief Awarded Under Unfair Competition Law After Bench Trial

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

Section 1021.5 Elements Were Met In This Case.              In Kane v. Valley Slurry Seal Co., Case No. C079558 (3d Dist. May 8, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a wage/hour class action prevailed after a bench trial under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Specifically, plaintiffs prevailed on some claims and the defense prevailed on others, but a

Private Attorney General:  Plaintiffs Invalidating Construction Based On Invalidity Of Six Of Eight Variances Entitled To CCP § 1021.5  Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$974,137.50 Fee Award Affirmed By 2/2 DCA.             La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (Target Corp.), Case No. B282137 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2018) (partially published) involved a situation where two public interest nonprofit plaintiffs challenged L.A.’s granting of eight variances so that a Target big box

Private Attorney General, Requests For Admissions, Section 998:  Former Employee Plaintiff Winning $50,000 In Damages Properly Denied Costs Of Proof Sanctions And Private Attorney General Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 998

Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded Costs To Defense Under CCP § 998 Offer.             One of the beauties of posting on unpublished decisions is to see the array of cross-over issues in fees/costs issues at the California state level.  Chamblee v. Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc., Case No. D073121 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr.

Scroll to Top