Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Plaintiffs Appealed on Significant CEQA Fire Impacts, Quino Protection, and Water Supply Impacts Issues.      Plaintiffs in Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, Case Nos. D055215/D061030 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2012) (published) certainly deserve accolades for hanging in there and prevailing on CEQA challenges to fire impacts, Quino protection, and water […]

  Case Still Pending, With Motion for Reconsideration Arguing Against “Chill” From Ultimate Result.      Field v. Bowen, Case No. CGC-10-502018 (San Francisco Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2012) is an interesting superior court decision in an election ballot write-in dispute eventually lost by plaintiff after a prior published appellate decision and then adverse decision on

       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

  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   Hospital psychiatrist technician, who won an administrative reversal of a medical demotion, also won an appeal in an unpublished decision upon a review requested by the Department of Medical Health.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