$1,800 For Unexplained Counsel Time to File Complaint Reduced From Fee Award. Building Assn. of the Bay Area v. City of Santa Rosa, Case No. A132839 (1st Dist., Div. 5) (Jan. 15, 2013) (unpublished) involved a lower court’s fee award to a builders association invalidating an ordinance requiring property owners to waive their
Lower Court’s Denial of Fees on Personal Interest Prong Was Reversed. In Zubarau v. City of Palmdale, Case No. 236406 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff–who was an amateur radio enthusiast–challenged a Palmdale zoning ordinance regulating approval of his application to construct a tower antenna at his home. He lost
Plaintiff, a vexatious litigant, appealed a trial court’s denial of his fee request under CCP § 1021.5, California’s attorney general statute, after he lost a bid to overturn a Nevada judgment on the grounds it was fraudulently procured. Plaintiff lost his appeal of the fee denial in Missud v. D.R. Horton, Inc.,
Plaintiffs Had Financial Incentive Aplenty In Challenging Contemporaneous Source Document Rule. Plaintiffs, school districts and community colleges, successfully challenged the “contemporaneous source document rule” (guidelines used to audit employee salary and benefit costs in reimbursement claims) as an invalid regulation under the state Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs then moved for an award
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
