Case Involved San Francisco Penalty Refunds Of $1.7 Million Which Were Affirmed In A Prior Published Opinion. Plaintiffs in Gajanan, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. A168328 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 10, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendants to obtain tax penalty refunds in a case under San Francisco regulations, eventually […]
Prelitigation Demand, Causation, And Primary Relief Elements Were Satisfied. Plaintiffs in San Diego Tenant Union v. San Diego Housing Comm’n, Case No. D081773 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendant to force it to increase housing-assisted payments in wealthier neighborhood, advancing a perpetual segregation theory under FEHA, the Unruh Act, contractual
Plaintiff Sought Over $1.4 Million In Fees, With The Fee Award Being $75,961.50, And With A Positive Enhancement Rejected. Limited success, such as where a defendant voluntarily changes their behavior, may mean that post-change fees are denied under the private attorney general fee-shifting statute, CCP § 1021.5. That is what happened in Save Berkeley’s
Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees. In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his
Petitioner Vindicated Mainly His Personal Interests And No Broad Pernicious Policy Proven Against L.A.’s Sheriff Department. Petitioner sought private attorney general fees in Richardson v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B333555 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) against the LASD after obtaining a court order removing his name as a suspected
$433,905 Was The Ask, But Nothing Awarded At Trial Level, Affirmed On Appeal. Financial incentives and avoidances are always at play in private attorney general fee requests. Unfortunately, petitioners drew the short end of the stick at both the trial and appellate levels in Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court (6th Dist. Sept.
Published Decision Only Decided Plaintiff Had To Be Registered With State Bar, But It Did Not Adjudicate A Key Unclean Hands Defense. In LegalMatch.com v. Jackson, Case No. A169115 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished), defendant defended a suit by plaintiff LegalMatch.com after defendant did not pay subscription fees for connecting clients
Reason Was That Defendant’s Avoidance Of Civil Penalties And The Costs Of Warnings Outweighed Any Important Right, Which Was Coincidental To Its Economic Interests. In Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Bio Hazard, Inc., Case No. A168332 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 12, 2024) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a Proposition 65 case against defendant after
Fifth District Affirmed After Independent Review Of Significant Benefit Prong Because Remand Would Be Futile Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard. In Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested etc., Case No. F085374 (5th Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth District reviewed an attorney’s fees award against Water District and in favor of
Significant Benefit Incurred, If Injunctive Relief Was Considered, And Other Objections Were Not Specific To Justify Any Reduction. In Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues
