Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 B272381/B281923 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where conservation authority sued an oil company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           Center for Environmental Health v. Nutraceutical Corp., Case No. A148208 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2018) (unpublished) is must reading for litigants and attorneys on the ambit and limitations of the catalyst theory which will give rise to attorney’s fees entitlement under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Private Attorney General: 1/4 DCA, In Unpublished Opinion, Explores Many Issues And The Causation Element Of CCP § 1021.5’s Catalyst Theory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 A147092/A147366 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 10, 2018) (unpublished), recently issued an opinion in an interesting case on a publicized event which constitutes must reading for practitioners prosecuting or defending fee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 May 8, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a wage/hour class action prevailed after a bench trial under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).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.

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

Scroll to Top