Bottom Line Was Important Shopping Center Store Lost Interest. Ya know, some cases boil down to very simple principles, if not all of them. The next one is a case in point. In Coalition For A Sustainable Future In Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, Case No. E057589 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June […]
City’s Confession Of Error Early On Did Not Retard Fee Recovery. Harbor Seal. Wordless symbol at English Wikipedia. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Animal Protection and Rescue League v. City of San Diego, Case No. D065178 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 27, 2015) (partially published; fee entitlement, but fee amount/costs discussion
Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. Schoendorf, Case No. H039321 (6th Dist. May 26, 2015) (unpublished). In this one, an appellate court denied $300,000 in attorney’s fees against the State under a settlement agreement where “reasonable diligence” governed the fee entitlement. Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and
Plaintiff Ultimately Lost Merits At Demurrer Stage. In Merrill v. County of Lake, Case No. A140744 (1st Dist., Div. 3 May 21, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff won a short-lived preliminary injunction in a challenge to a restrictive marijuana cultivation ordinance, but later lost at the demurrer stage. Plaintiff moved to recover lodestar fees and
However, Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion By Reducing Lodestar And Awarding No Multiplier–$145,747 Fee Recovery Affirmed. In Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara, Case No. H039707 (6th Dist. May 7, 2015) (published), a plaintiff winning a CEQA case—with the lower court acknowledging a development project was invalid without an
Attempts to Settle With Others—But Not The Right Agency—Did Not Carry The Day. Plaintiff filed a petition/complaint aimed to make the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reopen a Riverside County mirage trail in an ecological reserve. The defense demurred, which was sustained after new California legislation allowed the Fish and Game Commission
However, Many of the Nonstatutory Costs Were Taxed. Although we do not often post about trial court decisions involving fees and costs, Caleb Marker of Ridout Lyon + Ottoson, LLP in Long Beach sent us copies of the fees and costs rulings in Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC141354 (L.A.
Plaintiff Was Not Successful and Defendant Fixed Problem Based on CLRA Pre-Suit Notice. In Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., Case No. G049360 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff sued under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to recover damages for a small discrepancy between a
City Ordinance Involved Penalty If Public Members Remain In A Public Park After Sunset. In Coke v. City of Sacramento, Case No. C072866 (3d Dist. Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished), Ms. Coke successfully challenged a $300 administrative penalty assessed against her for violating a City ordinance prohibiting the public from remaining in a public
Reason Was That Plaintiff Was Not Successful Party As A Matter Of Law Under Catalyst Theory. Plaintiff in Washoe Meadows Community v. Cal. Dept. of Recreation, Case No. A139197 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 30, 2014) (unpublished) obtained an attorney’s fees award of $119,313.50 in a CEQA mandate proceeding involving a challenge to
