In our January 18, 2014 post, we discussed the then unpublished opinion in Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation District, where the Fourth District, Division 1 affirmed denial of private attorney general fees given the lack of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 Fish and Game Commn., Case No. A137889 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 28, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where non-profit plaintiff successfully pursued a mandate petition challenging the validity of a governmental regulation about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 In JCM Farming, Inc. v. Fantasy Balloon Flights, Case No. G048938 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff owned a farming operation/orchard in Riverside County and sued certain hot balloon operating defendants (including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 Jan. 14, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a lower court’s determination that Plaintiffs had
No Substantial Benefit Conferred on Public, Reviewing Court Determines. In Morgan v. Imperial Irrig. Dist., Case Nos. D060146/D061087 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a contention that the Imperial Irrigation District did not comply with Proposition 218 in its passage of new water rates. District won, but the lower court
Catalyst Theory is No Alternative, Because Mandate Win Was Judicial Determination. A director of a nonprofit public benefit corporation involving horses for disabled students successfully won a mandate proceeding in court by which she beat the board’s attempt to exclude her from a board meeting. She then moved for recovery of private attorney
End Result: $10,400 In Sanctions to Petitioner. In Riverside Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Riverside, Case No. E054180 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the lower court earlier had found that Riverside County violated a salary ordinance relating to temporary employee hiring, with the Sheriffs’ Association obtaining a writ which directed
Coastal Commission’s Failure to Track Public Resources Language Did Not Trigger 1021.5 Fees. Norberg v. California Coastal Comm’n, Case No. G047522 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 15, 2013) (published) involved a situation where residential homeowner obtained mandate directing the California Coastal Commission to set aside certain conditions restricting use of future shoreline protective
Fee Entitlement Was Established Under Public Records Act and Private Attorney General Statute, But Reversal of Civil Rights Judgment Determination Required a “Relook” All Around. Although quite a lengthy decision, Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, Case Nos. D060001/D061141 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 30, 2013) (published) does show that
Board Member Vindicated No Interest and Prior Board Sanctions Showed No Real Change to the Status Quo. Although this case got quite a bit of publicity in the San Diego County area, it went away with a relative whimper. In Tri-City Healthcare District v. Sterling, Case Nos. D059810 et al. (4th Dist.,
