Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 Oct. 6, 2015) (unpublished), both plaintiff and City appealed a lower court’s decision awarding plaintiff fees of about $250,000 (out of a requested $486,800 on the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 Sept. 30, 2015) (unpublished), one individual litigant, who was a proponent for an initiative on the Monterey County ballot, won a defense effort against another

Probate, Private Attorney General, Civil Rights, Costs, Discovery Sanctions: Lots Of Topics Covered In Four Unpublished Decisions For September 29, 2015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  Chang v. Chang, Case No. G049309 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2015) (Unpublished; Ikola, J.).—Probate.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

Private Attorney General: Willard Decision Certified For Publication

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Candidacy Mis-description Dispute Involved One’s Personal Interests.     On July 3, 2015, we posted on Willard v. Kelley, where the Fourth District, Division 3 in an unpublished decision affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to a party in a candidacy mis-description dispute, ultimately determining that the party’s personal interest was not transcended for CCP

Private Attorney General: Property Owners Winning Easement Dispute Involving Private/Public Rights Properly Denied CCP Section 1021.5 Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Judgment Saying “Fees According To Proof” Did Not Determine Entitlement, And Winners Did Not Satisfy Private Enforcement Element Of 1021.5.     Property owners in Citrus Heights got involved in a dispute over a private easement and overlapping public easement, with the City actually getting involved and using an offer of dedication to create a

Private Attorney General: Candidate Rebuffing Challenging By Political Opponent To Past Work Experience Not Entitled To 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  No Important Right Or Significant Benefit Vindicated.      Not all political “victories” give rise to private attorney general fee recovery under CCP § 1021.5, as the next case illustrates.      In Willard v. Kelley (Woolery), Case No. G050340 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), one political opponent (Willard) challenged a portion of

Scroll to Top