Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Failure To Seek Resolution Through Fish And Game Commission Prevented His Recovery Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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 […]

Lodestar, Multiplier, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Fees: Plaintiff’s Attorneys Garner $721,994.81 In Fee Recovery For Successfully Arguing City Of Los Angeles Could Not “Outsource” Initial Review Of

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

  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.

Consumer Statutes, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Losing Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claims Properly Denied Fee Request Of $337,443

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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      In Boling v. DTG Operations, Inc., Case No. G049360 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff sued under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to recover damages for a small discrepancy between a

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 Feb. 5, 2015) (unpublished), Ms.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

Scroll to Top