Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: City Whose Actions Were Under Scrutiny Was An “Opposing Party” Against Which Section 1021.5 Fees Could Be Assessed

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Multiplier, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Substantiation: Three Unpublished “Power Ball” Decisions Synopsized

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  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 May 26, 2015) (unpublished).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

Private Attorney General: Short-Lived Preliminary Injunction In Marijuana Cultivate Ordinance Restriction Case Did Not Justify Section 1021.5 Fee Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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      In Merrill v. County of Lake, Case No. A140744 (1st Dist., Div. 3 May 21, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff won a short-lived preliminary injunction in a challenge to a restrictive marijuana cultivation ordinance, but later lost at the demurrer stage.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

Private Attorney General: Fee Award To Winning Plaintiff In CEQA Matter Justified

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

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

Scroll to Top