In our July 25, 2012 post, we discussed City of Maywood v. L.A. Unified School District, which was partially published in its discussion of whether Whitley (a key private attorney general statute opinion) applied to public enforcement actions, answered “yes” by the appellate court. We can now report that the case in full […]
Plaintiff Did Not Have to Prove Size of Positively Impacted Class of Applicants. We would like to give a “Hat Tip” to Greg May, who authors the California Blog of Appeal, who discussed the case of Samantha C. v. State Dept. of Developmental Services, Case No. B232649 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 21,
Whitley Not Limited to Private Enforcement Actions. City of Maywood v. L.A. Unified School Dist., Case Nos. B233739/B236408 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 18, 2012) (partially published; fee discussion published) involved a municipality which won a CEQA writ proceeding challenging a final environmental impact report relating to a high school project, notwithstanding that
Fee Recovery Not Allowable Under Adoption of Joshua S. Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945, 949, 956 (2008) established an additional restriction on the scope of California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5): fees cannot be awarded against someone who has not adversely affected the rights of the
$300/Hour Is Reasonable Rate for Sonoma Practitioners. Healdsburg Citizens For Sustainable Solutions v. City of Healdsburg, Case No. A130374 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 4, 2012) (certified for partial publication; 1021.5 Trope fee discussion published and rest unpublished) involved the City’s appeal of $382,189.73 in fees awarded to CEQA winners, including an attorney
Her Financial Stake and Lack of Benefit to a Large Class Were Reasons Why. Hospital psychiatrist technician, who won an administrative reversal of a medical demotion, also won an appeal in an unpublished decision upon a review requested by the Department of Medical Health. She then sought fees and costs totaling $75,000, even
Public Hearings Remand Was a Limited One, At Best; Attorney/Paralegal Work Stricken From Cost Award In County’s Favor. A nonprofit organization out to save blue oak woodlands from the consequences of a development appealed a denial of a requested fee recovery under CCP § 1021.5 after they won a limited public hearings remand
Lack of Allocation Was Fatal for Brandt and RFA Issues. Insured prevailed in a suit against auto insurer for making repairs rather than declaring the car a total loss. However, insured was denied requested fees of $500,000 ($250,000 plus a 2 multiplier) even though claiming them under one of three theories: (1) California’s
Remand to Determine What Portion of Attorney and Paralegal Time Was “Administrative” in Nature. Collins v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B228882 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 20, 2012) (certified for publication) is a class action case where two class representatives on behalf of a class obtained a judgment-based common fund recovery
However, No Significant Benefit of Statewide or Countywide Concern Was Vetted In Win. Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in City of El Cajon v. County of San Diego Local Agency Formation Com., Case No. G045021 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a lower court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees
