Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General:  Respondents Specially Appearing In Securities Fraud Action Brought By Commissioner Of Department Of Business Oversight Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$149,500 Was The Amount Of The Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.             Although not formally intervening in a securities fraud action brought by the Commissioner of the Department of Business Oversight (DBO) against a real estate investment company and its promoters, respondents on appeal made a special appearance and obtained relief by which their individual […]

Private Attorney General:  Successful School District Did Not Garner CCP § 1021.5 Attorney’s Fees And Costs Where Its Partial Win Did Not Prevent Competing School District From Obtaining Charter By Sued Respondent

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Successful Result Only Made Sure Proper Findings Made, Not Vindicating Important Public Right Or Impacting Others Beyond Successful Party’s Constituents.             In Newhall School Dist. v. Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School Dist., Case No. B267856 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished), Newhall obtained a partial grant of its writ petition vacating Acton-Agua’s approval of

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  L.A. Times Improperly Denied Private Attorney General Fees Against Officers/Police Officer Union And Properly Granted Fees Under Public Record Act As Against City Of Pasadena

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

Trial Court’s Award Of $45,472 To Times Under PRA Affirmed On Appeal, With Times Now Getting To Seek Reasonable Fees Against Officers/Police Union Under CCP § 1021.5.             Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, Case No. B275566 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 12, 2018) (published) was a situation where the L.A. Times brought

Private Attorney General:  Plaintiffs Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because They Were Not A Catalyst And Did Not Attempt To Settle The Matter At A Prelitigation Stage

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiffs Could Not Surmount The Deferential Abuse Of Discretion Standard.             In Belemjian v. Becerra, Case No. F073507 (5th Dist. Mar. 29, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs/appellants filed an action challenging the regulatory process undertaken by the Attorney General, DOJ, and others to implement a firearm safety certificate program, although emergency regulations were ultimately adopted so as

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Successful Injunction Against Public Agency Contract Bidding Process Did Not Justify CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Plaintiff, Although Successful, Had Too Much Financial Incentive In Obtaining The Expensive Contract

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff, Although Successful, Had Too Much Financial Incentive In Obtaining The Expensive Contract Job Or In Obtaining A Re-Bid Of The Project.             In West Coast Air Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. D071611 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 22, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff wanted to obtain the bid of

Private Attorney General:  Reversal Of Plaintiffs’ Mandate Petition Means Trial Judge Then Has To Entertain Motion For Section 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Trial Judge, Rather Than Appellate Court, In Best Position To Determine Upon Full Record.             In Save LaFayette v. City of LaFayette, Case No. A149342 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 21, 2018) (published), the appellate court reversed a denial of appellants’ mandate petition requesting the City to submit their referendum to a public vote.  In

Private Attorney General:  Court Of Appeal Affirms Half Of Request By HOA In CEQA Case Where Some Diminution In Property Values Expected But Uncertain In Nature

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Apportionment Of Fees By HOA Helped Satisfy the “Financial Burden” Element Of CCP § 1021.5.             Heron Bay Homeowners Assn. v. City of San Leandro (Halus Power Systems), Case No. A143985 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 12, 2018) (published) is a situation where an HOA did win a CEQA biological issue “on a close call”

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

             Moonlight Fire.  2007.  Wikipedia.  Author:  kkmontandon.                  Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007

Costs, Discovery, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes:  Multi-Million Dollar Costs, Discovery Violation Sanctions, And Fee Recoveries Reversed And Remanded Based On Reversals And Necessity To Revisit Fee Entitlement Bases

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

            Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell, Case Nos. C074879/C076008 (3d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017) (fully published; first posted on Dec. 6, 2017 with costs/fee discussions not published) is a case arising from the 2007 Moonlight Fires which burned 65,000 acres in Plumas County.  Plaintiffs, mainly governmental agencies or affiliates, sought to recover

Private Attorney General:  UCL Violations Against Car Dealer Justified Section 1021.5 Recovery Of $24,278.18 In Fees And $ 3,922.50 In Favor Of Car Purchaser Obtaining Rescission Of Purchase And Damages

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Car Purchaser Requested Fees Of $80,927.25, But Fee Request Reduced For Work Vindicating Car Purchaser’s Personal Interests.             We found Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc., Case No. B268271 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 27, 2017) (partially published; fee discussion not published) to be interesting given how the trial judge fashioned a positive fee award

Scroll to Top