Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General:  Winning Litigant On Narrow Legal Issue Not Necessarily Applying To Large Class Of Individuals Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$63,945 Fee Request Rebuffed By Both Trial and Appellate Courts.             In Bonome v. City of Riverside, Case No. E065880 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 11, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff—a Riverside Police Officer—won a writ of mandate proceeding agreeing he was entitled to a good cause hearing to determine if he was honorably retired and entitled […]

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statute:  Two Public Employees Properly Awarded Fees Under Government Code Section 996.4 And Private Attorney General Statute

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

However, Fee Multiplier Not Allowed Under Section 996.4 And Plaintiffs Did Well To Cross-Appeal Given That Costs To Prosecute 996.4 Recovery Not Allowable Under 996.4, But Was Allowable Under CCP § 1021.5.             This next case counsels that a protective cross-appeal can be a true salvation.  It was for the successful plaintiffs in Hosac v.

Private Attorney General:  Individual Vindicating His Own Interests In Rap Sheet Remediation Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Individual Did Not Demonstrate Any Systematic Police Department Violation.             In Barry v. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B275359 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 10, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff prevailed narrowly on a writ of mandate requiring a remediation of his rap sheet under certain Penal Code provisions.  The trial judge refused to

Private Attorney General:  Surfrider Foundation Entitled To CCP § 1021 Fee Recovery In Dispute Involving Closure Of Public Access To Beaches Under The California Coastal Act  

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Result Was To Affirm A $470,461.55 Fee And $15,511 Costs Awards.             Who says that fee and costs awards under California’s private attorney general statute cannot be substantial in nature?  Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC, Case Nos. A1442681/A145176 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 9, 2017) (published) demonstrates they can, and frequently, are.

Private Attorney General: $6.16 Million Fee Award Remanded For Relook After Court Of Appeal Agrees That Some Credits Should Have Been Factored In To Employee/Independent Contractor Case Involving San Diego Union-Tribune Home Carriers

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Limited Success Has To Be Considered On Remand. "S. Russell, 33 E. 22nd St. Newsboy, 12 years of age.  Selling newspapers 2 years.  Average earnings 20 cents daily.  Selling newspapers own choice.  Father earns $18 weekly  Boy deposits earnings in du Pont Savings Bank, and on Saturday night works for Reyold's candy shop, delivering packages. 

Lodestar/Private Attorney General:  1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

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

    Re-Do Was The Result In This One.               In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under the private attorney general statute based on the

Lodestar/Private Attorney General: 1021.5 Fees Must Be Based On Lodestar Methodology, Not Percentage Of Recovery Test

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

Re-Do Was The Result In This One.            Above:  Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar.  Source: www.airwaysmuseum.com             In Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Company, Inc., Case No. B270168 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 3, 2017) (unpublished), a trial judge in a class action case awarded $29,409 in attorney’s fees to class counsel under

Private Attorney General: Although Project Proponent Ultimately Succeeding In Reversing A Project Mandamus Blocking Judgment Is Entitled To 1021.5 Fee Recovery, It Is Not Authorized Against A Litigant Who Did Not Impair Or Compromise Public Rights

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  In Fact, First Win Was One To Enforce Environmental Laws.     Botanical Building in Balboa Park.  May 2013.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  Library of Congress.     In Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) v. City of San Diego, Case No. D070006 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 27, 2017) (published), a certain Committee, proponent of a project to

Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Lower Court Abused Its Discretion In Not Applying Correct Legal Standards In Tax Reassessment Dispute

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

  Remanded For A “Re-Look” Of Fee Denial On Two Grounds.   Ox as “ye oppressed tax-payer” pulling cart of municipal, county, poor, state, courthouse, road, school, and local taxes. George Yost Coffin, creator. 1880-1900. Library of Congress.     Although involving a somewhat complicated probate partnership reassessment dispute where the public agency found the tax appeal

Private Attorney General: With Justices On His Side, Retired DCA Justice Mallano Recovers $659,756 In 1021.5 Fees In Judicial Retirement Formula Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Substantial Benefit And Financial Burden Elements Easily Met. Women with ukuleles. July 9, 1926. Library of Congress.     Well, we wish Retired Justice Robert Mallano the best in retirement; and, to show that he is not just playing a ukulele, the 2/2 DCA affirmed the merits and an attorney’s fees award in his favor in

Scroll to Top