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 On July 3, 2015, we posted on Willard v. Kelley, where the Fourth District, Division 3 in an unpublished decision affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to a party in a candidacy mis-description dispute, ultimately determining that the party’s personal interest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 […]
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
Opinion Deals With Causation Element Of CCP § 1021.5 Catalyst Analysis. On June 14, 2015, we posted on Coalition for a Sustainable Future in Yucaipa v. City of Yucaipa, Case No. E057589 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 8, 2015), which was unpublished at the time. This decision dealt with the causation aspect of
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 In Willard v. Kelley (Woolery), Case No. G050340 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), one political opponent (Willard) challenged a portion of
Fee Recovery Assessed Against County And Developer Equally Ruling Was Also Affirmed On Appeal. Limited success in public interest cases is an important factor that can lead to a substantial reduction in fees awardable under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5. That is what happened in North County Watch v. County
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 May 26, 2015) (unpublished).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
