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 […]

  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

  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 B238277/239897 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 11, 2014) (unpublished).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

  Amusement park rides, Santa Cruz.  2012.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  Library of Congress. $164,812.37 Fee Request Denied.        In Calif. Portable Ride Operators, LLC v. Cal. Div. of Occupational Safety, Case No. B242219 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 6, 2014) (unpublished), a representative plaintiff for a group of portable amusement ride (carnival) members

  On the Merits, Equity Could Not Trump Contrary Public Immunity Statute Dictates.      Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura, Case No. B239668 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 10, 2014) (published) started out with a bang: “Equity, although designed to promote justice, cannot be used to nullify a contrary statute.”      Plaintiffs sued City and

       In our January 18, 2014 post, we discussed the then unpublished opinion in Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation District, where the Fourth District, Division 1 affirmed denial of private attorney general fees given the lack of causal link between the District’s actions in dropping some charges and Plaintiff’s suit. We can now report that

  Both Sides’ Appeals—Government For Nothing, Plaintiffs For More—Result In Fee Award Being Sustained.      Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Fish and Game Commn., Case No. A137889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 28, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where non-profit plaintiff successfully pursued a mandate petition challenging the validity of a governmental regulation about

  Private, Not Public, Interest Dispute Involved Only.      Okay, hot balloon enthusiasts, this next case is for you.      In JCM Farming, Inc. v. Fantasy Balloon Flights, Case No. G048938 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff owned a farming operation/orchard in Riverside County and sued certain hot balloon operating defendants (including

In First Impression Issue, Decides that Immediate, Direct Financial Interest Not Required, With Potential Impact on Competition in a Mall Project Enough.      The Fifth District in LandValue 77, LLC v. Bd. of Trustees of Calif. State Univ., Case No. F063653 (5th Dist. Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a lower court’s determination that Plaintiffs had