Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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       Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought […]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 v. City of Indio, Case No. G050051 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2014) (unpublished), Presiding Justice O’Leary, the author for the assigned panel hearing the case, confronted a $102,900 fee award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

Private Attorney General: Litigant Winning Unconstitutionality Of Revenue & Taxation Code Section In Tax Refund Matter Entitled To Award Of Fees Under CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Lower Court Erred in Considering Detriments to Other Class of Persons and In Denying Fees to Well-Heeled Litigants Whose Fees Outstripped Amount of Refund.      Earlier, a litigant had won on appeal in a tax refund case where a certain tax was held unconstitutional with respect to a class of taxpayers who invest in

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Whistleblowing Officer Retains Non-Economic Damages, Does Not Retain Economic Damages, And Does Not Get Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Whistleblower Claim Alone Does Not Justify CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery.      In Hager v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B238277/B239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) (opn. after rehearing), plaintiff whistleblower obtained $2 million in economic damages and $2.5 million in non-economic damages from a jury verdict. On appeal, the public

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Winning Mandate In Riverside County Termination Case Gets $99,665 In Fees Evaporated On Appeal

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

  Neither CCP § 1021.5 Nor 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Supported Fee Award.      In Rivera v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055956 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained mandate for an administrative hearing based on her termination by the County of Riverside under unusual factual circumstances, eventually leading to a

Private Attorney General: Denial Of $382,382.50 In Attorney’s Fees To Appealing Parties Was Justified Because Their Financial Interest Was Not Disproportionate To Fees Expended

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Appealing Parties Saved $31 Million in Funds Being Transferred, With Whitley and Maywood Providing Cost/Benefit Analytical Compass.      Children and Families Comm’n of Fresno County v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Case No. F066233 (5th Dist. July 22, 2014) (published) was a situation where the lower court denied attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5 to

Private Attorney General: Unsuccessful Litigant Below Could Not Transform Itself Into Successful Party For Purposes Of Obtaining CCP § 1021.5 Fees On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Loser Below Cannot Be 1021.5 Successful Party.     Prospector blowing on pan of fine dirt which contains particles of gold. Russell Lee, photographer.  1940.  Library of Congress.      This is what we would call a chutzpah appeal. A business purchasing gold from individuals protested County of Department of Weight and Measures’ claims that the

Private Attorney General: Whistleblower Obtaining Substantial Jury Verdict In His Favor Did Not Confer Significant Public Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  CCP § 1021.5 Fees Denied Because Benefit Was Personal in Nature.     Whistler and friends.  Library of Congress.      Plaintiff whistleblower, a Los Angeles County sheriff, must have mixed emotions in Hager v. County of Los Angeles, Case Nos. B238277/239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 11, 2014) (unpublished).      He won a substantial jury

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Denying Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Obtained Technical EIR Correction Of A Transparent Nature Benefitting Only A Small Zone of Neighbors

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

  Deferential Standard/Implied Findings Supported Ruling Below.      The standard of review adopted by an appellate court is frequently one of the most important compasses guiding the ultimate result reached in a case up on appeal. Lynbrook-Monta Vista United v. Fremont Union High School Dist., Case No. H038553 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates

Scroll to Top