Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Voluntary Reduction By County Was Due To Retirement Of Certain Employees, Not Change In Methodology By Which Fees Calculated Such That Plaintiff Was Not Successful For 1021.5 Purposes.      California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo, Case No. C078158 (3d Dist. Oct. 14, 2016) (published) involved a plaintiff’s challenge to the fees

  Plaintiffs Failed To Satisfy Financial Burdens Elements of CCP § 1021 Analysis.     Plaintiffs successfully challenged a State Water Resources Control Board cease and desist order (CDO) in a water diversion case, which resulted in an affirmance in favor of plaintiffs in a prior published decision.  Based on that result, plaintiffs moved to recover

  First Impression Issue, But Unique Circumstances, Required Reversal Of Fee Grant Involving Substantial Fee Recovery To Nonprofit.      This case shows how unique factual circumstances can drive cases, especially in the attorney’s fees recovery area of the law. Hold on, this is a wild ride but not necessarily given the unique factual circumstances involved.

  Lower Court Fee Award Affirmed, An Award We Reviewed Earlier.      In our March 6, 2015 post, we discussed a private attorney general fee award of a little shy of $722,000 to Mr. Weiss in a case where he successfully challenged the City of Los Angeles’ delegation of initial review of parking citations to

Significant Benefit Conferred When Law Enforcement Agencies Are Ordered To Implement The Law Correctly.      In Schmidt v. California Highway Patrol, Case No. B260643 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 1, 2016) (published), a class was certified and a writ petition granted in a case to compel the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to comply with Penal

  Both Sides Appealed, But Lower Court Award Affirmed.     Above:  Col. Roosevelt, Tarlton, and the big lion. Photographer:  Kermit Roosevelt.  c1919.  Library of Congress.      Exotic Feline Breeding Compound v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Case No. F070449 (5th Dist. June 22, 2016) (unpublished) involved the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s appeal of a

  $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     In Hillis v. City of Aliso Viejo, Case No. G051900 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 2, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully contested a nonconforming traffic sign infraction against City, obtaining a dismissal of a criminal charge.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

  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