Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTE: WHERE DISTRICT FOUND TO BE PROPOSITION 218 COMPLIANT, PLAINTIFFS FOUND NOT ENTITLED TO CCP § 1021.5 FEES WHEN CERTAIN FEES VOLUNTARILY REMOVED BEFORE COMPLAINT FILED

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 D060146/D061087 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 17, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a contention that the Imperial Irrigation District did not comply with Proposition 218 in its passage of new water rates.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 […]

Private Attorney General Statute: Director’s Mandate Win By Which She Successfully Beat Exclusion From Board Meeting Of Nonprofit Organization Did Not Impact The Public Interest

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Private Attorney General/Requests for Admissions: Lower Court Correctly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees And Properly Awarded Petitioner $10,400 In RFA Costs-Of-Proof Sanctions While Properly Denying Defense Costs-Of-Proof Request

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission

  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 v. County of Riverside, Case No. E054180 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the lower court earlier had found that Riverside County violated a salary ordinance relating to temporary employee hiring, with the Sheriffs’ Association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

Private Attorney General: Residential Homeowner Winning Residential Permit Mandate Reversal Impacting $250,000 In Improvements Did Not Confer A Significant Benefit Or Was Not Financially Askew From Personal Interests

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

POOF!/Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Reversal Of Federal Due Process Violations Count Required Remand Redetermination Of Fee Awards To Prevailing Parties In Reverse Validation Action

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Private Attorney General Statute/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Optometrist Overturning ALJ Determination Against His Certificate Not Entitled To Fee Award Under Private Attorney General Statute Or Government Code Section 800

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $80,000 Fee Award/$2,000 Costs Award Go POOF!        Artist:  Jean-Léon Gérôme.  1824 – 1904.      Optometrist had gotten a nice win–a superior court overturned an ALJ’s determination that the optometrist had violated the standard of care in relation to a patient’s cataracts diagnosis. The lower court then awarded optometrist about $80,000 in fees

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Obtaining Earlier Published Decision On Stray Day Impounding Period Erroneously Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Remand to Fix Fees for Winning Plaintiff.      Plaintiff in Purifoy v. Howell, Case No. A135284 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 26, 2013) (unpublished) must    initially have been sorely disappointed when she was denied an award of attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute after obtaining an earlier published appellate court decision which

Private Attorney General: 85% Reduction In Requested Fee Award Was No Abuse Of Discretion, Although Dissenting Justice Disagreed With Some Cuts

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  CCP § 1021.5 Benefit And Economic Interest Factors Satisfied–CEQA Winner Awarded $56,459.16 Out of Requested $668,386 in Fees.      For you readers following private attorney general fee awards under CCP § 1021.5, North Sonoma County Healthcare Dist. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A134862 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2013) (unpublished) is an

Consumer Statutes: UCL Plaintiffs Can Seek Attorney’s Fees Under Private Attorney General Statute

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  State Supreme Court Clarifies UCL Reach On Insurance Bad Faith Actions, Including A Footnote On Fee Recovery.      In Zhang v. Superior Court, Case No. S178542 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 1, 2013), our state supreme court held that common law bad faith insurances cases can be pled and sustained as unfair competition law claims,

Scroll to Top