Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. D071611 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 22, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff wanted to obtain the bid of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

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.

Scroll to Top