Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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Our Homes And Hills v. County of Orange (Yorba Linda Estates), Case No. G054631 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 25, 2018) (unpublished) was an appeal from a situation where CEQA petitioners “partially” prevailed in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

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

Scroll to Top