Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Class Actions, Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: $1.174 Million Award To Class Counsel In Fair Debt Collection Practices Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

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Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues […]

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Section 1021.5 Fee Request Properly Denied Where Trial Court Concluded That Its Government Claim/Suit Did Not Inspire Government Action On Health Permits During The Covid Pandemic

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Substantial Evidence Was The Review Standard, So The Factual Finding Submarined A Catalyst Theory Challenge On Appeal.                In Costeaux French Bakery, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A166727 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sought private attorney general’s fees under a catalyst theory.  What basically happened was that the County

Private Attorney General: Public Agency Prevailing Against Private Company Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees For Succeeding In Groundwater Contamination Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plain Meaning Of Section 1021.5 Supported The District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Plaintiff Agency.                In Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., Case No. 22-55727 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2024) (published), plaintiff water agency certainly prevailed against defendant company upon various torts and CERCLA based on alleged groundwater contamination.  Agency moved for

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff’s Jury Trial Win Almost Completely Absorbed By Successful Defense 998 Offer After Reduction For Post-Offer Expenses

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

Also, Plaintiff’s Suit Benefitted Herself, So No Section 1021.5 Fees Were Warranted.                Nairobi v. Watkins, Case Nos. A164665 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2024) (unpublished) shows the potency of a successful defense CCP § 998 offer:  plaintiff’s $101,768.89 jury award got reduced to just $3,772.87.  The lower court also denied plaintiff’s

Private Attorney General: $2.317 Million Fee Request Properly Denied Where Nonprofit Petitioner Only Obtained Limited Relief With No Tangible Economic Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Significant Benefit Element Of Private Attorney General Statute Was Not Satisfied.                Nonprofit petitioner in The Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County v. Drager, Case No. C097016 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2024) (unpublished) brought a wide range of claims against governmental entities, obtaining limited relief on payment of loan reporting requirements with respect to

Private Attorney General: Fifth District Affirms Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff Who Had A $1,036,728 Financial Incentive And $456,935.25 In Legal Fees.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Incentive, That Far Outweighed The Incurred Costs Of Litigation, Warranted Denial Of Fees, And Plaintiff’s Analysis of Heron Bay Did Not Change That Factor.             Recovery of attorney fees under California’s private attorney general doctrine, codified at CCP § 1021.5, is reserved for “litigants and attorneys who step forward to engage in public

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Insured Did Vindicate Important Rights For California Insureds By Obtaining Published Affirmance Of An Insured’s Right To Videotape Insurer’s Participants In An EUO.             In Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. A166946 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 30, 2024) (partially published), by a 2-1 vote, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s determination

Private Attorney General: Although All Factors But Financial Benefits Were Clearly Met, Remand Was Justified To Relook at Whitley Cost/Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

If Analysis Was OK, Nothing Wrong With The Amount Of The $582,927 Award.             In Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp., Case No. D080295 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2023) (published), a trial court determined that a school district should pay private attorney general fees to charter schools for prevailing

Private Attorney General: Nonprofit Defendant/Petitioner Obtaining Certification Of Fresno’s Measure P, In A Prior Appellate Reversal, Was Erroneously Denied § 1021.5 Fees As Against City

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Appellate Court Found That Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Having Good Discussions Of The “Opposing Party,” Public Interest, And Interests of Justice Requirements.             In City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, et al., Case Nos. F084662/F084666 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a nonprofit defendant/petitioner Fresno Building Healthy Communities (FBHC) was denied

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Additional Defendants Were Determined To Be “Opposing Parties” Such That They Should Have Been Added As Liable For A Private Attorney General Fee Award

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

Additional Defendants Were Unified In Interest With Other Defendants Subject To The Fee Award.             To recover attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, the plaintiff must recover against “opposing parties.”  Taft v. Salinas, Case No. D081025 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) considered the scope of that language

Scroll to Top