Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Winner Vindicated Important Right To Initiative Tenets And 1021.5 Fee Award Can Be Made Against Losing Individual Litigant.     In Bogan v. Houlemard (Campbell), Case No. H041246 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2015) (unpublished), one individual litigant, who was a proponent for an initiative on the Monterey County ballot, won a defense effort against another […]

  Company’s Financial Interest Outstripped Broader Public Interests, With Interesting Discussion Of Settlement Communications And Whitley Analysis Where No Monetary Award Sought By Fee Claimant.     Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles (CBS Outdoor LLC), Case No. B255050 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 8, 2015) (published) is a nice addition to CCP §

Neither A Significant Public Right Vindicated Nor Significant Benefit Conferred.     Not every vindication of a statutory right is worthy of private attorney general fees under CCP section 1021.5.  Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn. v. County of Contra Costa, Human Resources Dept., Case No. A140669 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 21, 2015) (unpublished)

  Future Pecuniary Interest Was Too Speculative To Disqualify Successful CEQA Petitioner.      In Ocean View School Dist. v. City of Huntington Beach, Case No. G049545 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 24, 2015) (unpublished), petitioner OVSD sought decertification of a final environmental impact report (FEIR) approved by Huntington Beach (City) for a mixed-use “conceptual” project

  Candidacy Mis-description Dispute Involved One’s Personal Interests.     On July 3, 2015, we posted on Willard v. Kelley, where the Fourth District, Division 3 in an unpublished decision affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to a party in a candidacy mis-description dispute, ultimately determining that the party’s personal interest was not transcended for CCP

  Judgment Saying “Fees According To Proof” Did Not Determine Entitlement, And Winners Did Not Satisfy Private Enforcement Element Of 1021.5.     Property owners in Citrus Heights got involved in a dispute over a private easement and overlapping public easement, with the City actually getting involved and using an offer of dedication to create a

  Opinion Deals With Causation Element Of CCP § 1021.5 Catalyst Analysis.      On June 14, 2015, we posted on Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, Case No. E057589 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 8, 2015), which was unpublished at the time. This decision dealt with the causation aspect of

  No Important Right Or Significant Benefit Vindicated.      Not all political “victories” give rise to private attorney general fee recovery under CCP § 1021.5, as the next case illustrates.      In Willard v. Kelley (Woolery), Case No. G050340 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), one political opponent (Willard) challenged a portion of

  Fee Recovery Assessed Against County And Developer Equally Ruling Was Also Affirmed On Appeal.    Limited success in public interest cases is an important factor that can lead to a substantial reduction in fees awardable under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5.  That is what happened in North County Watch v. County