Case Discussed at Our December 19, 2011 Post. In our December 19, 2011 post, we discussed LaGrone v. City of Oakland, a First District, Division 3 decision denying LaGrone’s request for attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney general statute–mainly because a change in practices by a governmental entity or cautionary message to it […]
Scholarly Unpublished Decision Shows Several Elements of CCP § 1021.5 Not Met. This one presented an interesting factual situation in which the Fifth District had no difficulty in affirming a lower court’s denial of fees to a plaintiff under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5. Sanctuary Merced v. Central Presbyterian
Public Interest, Significant Benefit, and Financial Burden Components Are Analyzed in this One; Section 998 Rejected Offer Also Considered. An ex-Chowchilla police chief (Mr. Robinson) won a Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) claim against the City, with the trial court later awarding $50,140 on a separate contract claim. Previously,
No CCP § 1021.5 Award Was Justified Under the Circumstances. A Port of Oakland engineer won an administrative writ proceeding by which he was reinstated with back pay in LaGrone v. City of Oakland, Case Nos. A129306/A130030 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 16, 2011) (unpublished). However, his request for attorney’s fees under California’s
Blockbilling Did Not Result in Punishment Based On Unique Case Circumstances. Jaramillo v. County of Orange, Case Nos. G043142/G043813 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 8, 2011) (certified for publication) is likely the last real publicity upshot from Orange County’s appeal of a $183,689 back pay award to former Orange County Assistant Sheriff George
Public Interest Nature of Litigation Was Evident, Rules High Court. For all of you interested in private attorney general statute jurisprudence, the late breaking decision of the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., Case No. S183372 (Cal. Supreme Court Oct. 31, 2011) is must reading. Plaintiffs in
The appellate court’s recent decision in Ross v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B228624 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 20, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates our POOF! principle in convincing fashion. There, the appellate court reversed a mandate petition in part which was favorable to plaintiffs. That reversal meant that the $260,000 fees award to
Trial Court Properly Rejected Comparison of Selective Tasks of Opposing Counsel in Gauging Reasonableness of Claimant’s Fee Request. Here is an interesting one where years and years of litigation may have come to a close in Vasquez v. State of California, Case No. D056598 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished), resolving
Water Connection Charge Was Reduced, But Winning Litigant Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees. A home builders group and developer were denied a requested award of $150,000 in section 1021.5 fees even though a Water District substantially reduced a water connection/capacity fee for residential units to be constructed when the economy improves as a
Both Sides Appeal, One Claiming No Fee Entitlement and the Other Claiming an Enhancement Should Have Been Awarded; Result? Affirmed in Full. GH Capital, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B221987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting for its facts and its affirmance of a $125,000 fee
