Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Denied Fee Recovery As Catalyst In Nonconforming Singular Traffic Sign Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $70,000 Fee Request Rebuffed By Trial And Appellate Courts.     In Hillis v. City of Aliso Viejo, Case No. G051900 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully contested a nonconforming traffic sign infraction against City, obtaining a dismissal of a criminal charge.  Plaintiff’s father asked the City to remove the offensive […]

Appealability/Private Attorney General: Denial Of Private Attorney General Fee Recovery For Traffic Infraction Partial Win Was Proper Because Appeal Did Not Affect Winner’s Substantial Rights

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

  Traffic Infraction Winners May Face Hard Road to Hoe As Far As Fee Recovery.     In Gray v. Superior Court, Case No. B269150 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2016) (published), a person failing to stop at a red light partially won an automated camera traffic enforcement challenge, with the person filing to recovery

Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Section 1717: Neither Borrower Winning $523.14 Nor Lender With Beating 998 Offers Were Deemed Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Both Went Away Unhappy, We Assume.     In Russo v. Bank of America, Case No. D067623 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 17, 2016) (unpublished), borrower and lender won some sides of claims in an impound dispute, although plaintiff borrower eventually won $523.14 based on a contract with a fees clause after seeking $795,000 plus

Private Attorney General: Intervening Parties Whose Involvement In Suit Did Not Materially Contribute Beyond Public Entity-Affiliated Litigants Denied A Substantial Fee Request Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Fee Request of Over $1.785 Million Denied In Entirety.     For intervening parties in suits with potential fee recovery in CCP § 1021.5 cases, San Diego Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of San Diego, Case No. D066886 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 9, 2016) (published) is a stark reminder that you must bring something

Private Attorney General: $250,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Affirmed, But Remanded For Redetermination Of Whether Negative Multiplier Was Warranted For Only “Partial Success” And Whether “Fees On Fees” Cut Justified

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

  Need For More Expensive Out-Of-Venue Counsel Was Well Justified By Fee Claimant.      In Habitat and Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz, Case No. H040762 (6th Dist. Oct. 6, 2015) (unpublished), both plaintiff and City appealed a lower court’s decision awarding plaintiff fees of about $250,000 (out of a requested $486,800 on the

Private Attorney General: $86,909.34 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 By One Winning Individual In Dispute Against A Losing Individual Affirmed

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

Probate, Private Attorney General, Civil Rights, Costs, Discovery Sanctions: Lots Of Topics Covered In Four Unpublished Decisions For September 29, 2015

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Costs, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Probate

  Chang v. Chang, Case No. G049309 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2015) (Unpublished; Ikola, J.).—Probate.     In this and a companion appeal, the appellate court cut some surcharges to the trustee of about $345,000.  Because of this companion ruling, the appellate court sent back a $187,900 fee award against trustee and in favor

Private Attorney General: Billboard Company Successfully Challenging Illegal Settlement Agreement Relating To Digital Signs Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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 §

Private Attorney General: Contra Costa County Deputy DA’s Association Prevailing On Hiring Practices Relating To One Deputy DA Not Entitled To CCP Section 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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)

Private Attorney General: Successful CEQA Plaintiff Improperly Denied Fees Against Public Entity, But Properly Denied Against Private Party

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Scroll to Top