Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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      Plaintiff in Purifoy v. Howell, Case No. A135284 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 26, 2013) (unpublished) must    initially have been sorely disappointed when she was denied an award of attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute after obtaining an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 v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A134862 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2013) (unpublished) is an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,

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

Scroll to Top