Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 D060230 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 16, 2014) (unpublished)      Here, a CEQA petitioner finally forged a settlement with the City of San Diego over issuing a permit for the 2010 La Jolla Cove Fireworks Show without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

Private Attorney General: $445,000 Fee Award To Nonprofit Succeeding On CEQA Mitigation Measure Claim Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $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      Living Rivers Council v. State Water Resources Control Bd., Case No. A138723 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 15, 2014) (unpublished) has a nice discussion of the private attorney fee recovery elements under CCP § 1021.5 and also demonstrates how a carefully framed lower

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       Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought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

Scroll to Top