$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 Living Rivers Council v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Case No. A138723 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 15, 2014) (unpublished) has a nice discussion of the private attorney fee recovery elements under CCP § 1021.5 and also demonstrates how a carefully framed lower […]
$102,900 CCP § 1021.5 Award Affirmed in Favor of Police Union Association. On September 17, 2014, we posted on Indio Police Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio, Case No. G050051, a Fourth District, Division 3 decision affirming a $102,900 CCP § 1021.5 award in favor of a police union association. This opinion
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 Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought
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 v. City of Indio, Case No. G050051 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2014) (unpublished), Presiding Justice O’Leary, the author for the assigned panel hearing the case, confronted a $102,900 fee award
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
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
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 B238277/B239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 5, 2014) (unpublished) (opn.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
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 In Rivera v. County of Riverside, Case No. E055956 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 1, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained mandate for an administrative hearing based on her termination by the County of Riverside under unusual factual circumstances, eventually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
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
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
