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
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 Nov. 17, 2014) (unpublished) is an interesting decision in the CCP § 1021.5 private attorney general area, the result largely depending on the unique procedural
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
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 D060230 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 16, 2014) (unpublished) Here, a CEQA petitioner finally forged a settlement with the City of San Diego over issuing a permit for the 2010 La Jolla Cove Fireworks Show without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
$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 Living Rivers Council v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Case No. A138723 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 15, 2014) (unpublished) has a nice discussion of the private attorney fee recovery elements under CCP § 1021.5 and also demonstrates how a carefully framed lower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 Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought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
