Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General/Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting: Defendants Winning Demurrer On B & P Code Section Relating to Legal Advertising Improperly Awarded Fees Under B&P Code § 6158.4(i), Incorporating Private Attorney General Fee Entitlemen

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents.      This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to […]

Private Attorney General: Litigants Successfully Opposing Preelection Challenge To Local Measure Erroneously Denied Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Matter Remanded for Lower Court to Gauge Reasonableness of Requested Fees and to Rule on Positive Multiplier Request.      A citizen leaves the voting booth.  1944.  Lewis Walker, photographer.  Library of Congress.      A lower court denied a fee request entirely as to two litigants successfully opposing a preelection challenge to Measure N (a

Private Attorney General: Judgment Dismissed As Moot Did Require Reversal Of Substantial Fee Recovery Because Nonprofit Plaintiff Did Not Prevail

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  However, Not All Was Lost–Fee Recovery Had To Be Reconsidered Under Catalyst Theory On Remand.      AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District, Case No. H039559 (6th Dist. Nov. 17, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting decision in the CCP § 1021.5 private attorney general area, the result largely depending on the unique procedural

Private Attorney General Fees: Award Of Fees To Patient Is Overturned Because He Did Not Show Enforcement Of Public Right Was Necessary

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Standard of Review

Fee Award Of $126,974.13 Goes Poof !     The Sixth District has overturned a fee award to an unfortunate dental patient for injuries arising from negligently performed dental work because private enforcement of the public right vindicated was unnecessary – a predicate for recovery of fees under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021.5.  Bui

Private Attorney General/Receivers: $250,000 In Fee Recovery To CEQA Petitioners Under City of San Diego Settlement Agreement And Receivers Fees Sustained With No Need To Submit Costs Memorandum

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

  Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Case Nos. D060230 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 16, 2014) (unpublished)      Here, a CEQA petitioner finally forged a settlement with the City of San Diego over issuing a permit for the 2010 La Jolla Cove Fireworks Show without performing an environmental review. Under

Private Attorney General: $445,000 Fee Award To Nonprofit Succeeding On CEQA Mitigation Measure Claim Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $602,211.23 Fee Request Pared Down By Lower Court and Sustained.      Living Rivers Council v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Case No. A138723 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 15, 2014) (unpublished) has a nice discussion of the private attorney fee recovery elements under CCP § 1021.5 and also demonstrates how a carefully framed lower

Private Attorney General: Class Representative Who Did Not Catalyze DUI Blood Draw Refunds Before Suit Filed Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  County Actually Voluntarily Made Refunds; Class Rep’s Getting Refunds To 11 “Overlooked” Persons Did Not Constitute Substantial Class Of Persons.      Puck.  1907.  Library of Congress.       Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought

Private Attorney General: $102,900 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery To Police Officer Union Successfully Obtaining Injunction For Compliance With Meet And Confer Requirements Of Meyers-Milias-Brown Act

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Public Interest and Financial Burden Elements Met Based on Detailed Moving Submissions; Multiplier Request Denied.      In Indio Police Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio, Case No. G050051 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2014) (unpublished), Presiding Justice O’Leary, the author for the assigned panel hearing the case, confronted a $102,900 fee award

Lodestar/Private Attorney General/Reasonableness Of Fees: Non-Profit Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Against Developer Under Split Fee Settlement Arrangement Between Non-Profit And City

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, Lodestar Had to Be Re-fixed on a Couple of Issues.      Plaintiff SONG, a non-profit, prevailed in an earlier appeal of a challenge to the environmental review of a project to amend Lancaster’s general plan to change the zoning designation so that a developer could construct a shopping center on a vacant lot

Scroll to Top