Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A134862 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2013) (unpublished) is an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,

Private Attorney General: Marijuana Dispensary, Winning At Pleading Stage, Did Not Win Ultimate Litigation Objective To Prevent City From Closing Dispensary

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Dispensary Was Not Successful Under CCP § 1021.5, Ultimately.      In Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim, Case No. G046875 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2013) (unpublished), a former medical marijuana dispensary lost an attempt to recoup attorney’s fees under the private atttorney general statute. Although dispensary won at the pleading stage,

Private Attorney General Statute: Plaintiff Winning Reversal Of Demurrer On Residential Secondhand Smoke Issue In Earlier Published Decision Not Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Plaintiff Eventually Lost at Trial Based On Expert Proof of No Harm on Nuisance Claim.     Plaintiff, in Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, Case No. B234296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 29, 2013) (unpublished) (Birke II), had won an earlier appeal resulting in a published decision (Birke I) by which a without leave demurrer on

Sanctions/Section 998/Costs/Private Attorney General: Four-In-One Post Unpublished Quartet

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished).     In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose

Private Attorney General: Owner Obtaining Issuance of Unconditional Certificates Of Compliance Not Entitled to CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Owner’s Economic Benefits Outstripped Cost of Litigation Based on Conflicting Trial Court Evidence Presented in Fee Motion.      County of Santa Cruz was ordered to issue four unconditional certificates of compliance for 4 parcels owned by Heather Point. However, Heather Point was denied recovery of attorney’s fees of around $475,000 under CCP § 1021.5,

Civil Rights/Private Attorney General: Litigant Obtaining Voluntary Changes By San Francisco In Connection With False Alarm Ordinance Properly Denied 1021.5 And Section 1988 Fee Recovery

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Unreasonable Post-Litigation Failure to Settle and Absence of Court-Ordered Change Negated Fee Entitlement Bases.       After petitioner lost an administrative hearing on the issue in Wineberg v. City & County of San Francisco, Case Nos. A134143/A134941 (Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), he commenced a lawsuit contesting a San Francisco ordinance assessing penalties for false burglar/fire

Lodestar/Multiplier/Private Attorney General/Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Catalyst Theory Fee Recovery Against Gambling Control Commission Affirmed, But Strikes Multiplier For “Fees On Fees” Work On Amount Of Fees

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Reconstructed Time Sheet Evidence Went Only to Weight, Not Admissibility Of Fee Submissions.      In Cates v. John Chiang, as State Controller, Case No. D060570 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 7, 2013) (published), plaintiff received $2,011,844 in fees under a private attorney general “catalyst theory” (lodestar at a blended hourly rate of $451 for

Private Attorney General: Fee Recovery Denial Based On Financial Stake Prong Of CCP § 1021.5 Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       Aegis Medical Systems, Inc. v. Zitto, Case No. A134907 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was not a hard one to decide at either or the appellate court level, apparently. Although plaintiff did prevail on a drug treatment “underground regulation” issue, the problem was that plaintiff had a huge financial incentive

Private Attorney General: $316,622.74 Fee Award Reversed Because Nonprofit Must Show Its Organizational Members Lacked A Financial Stake

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       Although the decision actually involves interesting issues about the constitutionality of legislative enactments relating to redevelopment agencies, Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, Case No. C064907 (3d Dist. Jan. 24, 2013) (published) did hold that a $315,622.74 fee recovery under California’s private attorney general statute had to be reversed. Reason? The financial burden element

Scroll to Top