Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Litigant Whose Administrative Penalty For Violating City Ordinance On Technicality Did Not Vindicate An Important Right Or Confer A Significant Benefit For CCP § 1021.5 Purposes

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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 Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished), Ms.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 […]

Private Attorney General: $119,313.50 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award Goes POOF! On Appeal

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

  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 of Recreation, Case No. A139197 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 30, 2014) (unpublished) obtained an attorney’s fees award of $119,313.50 in a CEQA mandate proceeding involving a challenge to

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      This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to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

Scroll to Top