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 GH Capital, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B221987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting for its facts and its affirmance of a $125,000 fee
Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County v. Madera, Case No. F059857 (5th Dist. Sept. 14, 2011) (unpublished). In this one, which followed on the heels of a published decision affirming and reversing a highly contested CEQA battle, the lower court awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $270,845 and no multiplier out of a requested $460,994.11 (with
Court of Appeal Affirms Fee Denial Under Special Shifting Provision and Private Attorney General Statute. After winning a tax refund issue relating to California tax treatment of repatriated dividends paid by certain of its subsidiaries, Apple, Inc. moved to recover attorney’s fees of $683,492.73 from the State on two independent grounds. The trial
Second District, Division 6 Reverses Small Fee Award to Catalyst 1021.5 Winners. In an interesting decision arising out of a private owner-church dispute, the Second District, Division 6 again shows us that they are very attuned to fee award issues under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute).
$115,439.46 Fee Request Rebuffed. In Chollas Restoration, Enhancement and Conservancy Community Development Corp. v. City of San Diego, Case No. D057460 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 14, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff won a petition, not on substantive grounds, but on the fact that publication was one day short on a draft mitigated negative declaration.
Choice of Law–California Law Applies Across the Board If It Is the Governing Choice of Law on Fee Issues. In our prior posts of June 11, 2008 and January 21, 2010, we discussed decisions indicating that Civil Code section 1717’s reciprocity principle is a fundamental California interest trumping unilateral fee clauses governed by
1.5 Multipler Must Be Revisited, But Likely Proper. After a bench trial, taxpayers of a closely-held corporation obtained invalidation of a decades-long Board of Equalization practice and obtained tax refunds, with the lower court finding that a public benefit had been provided to other closely-held companies so as to trigger fee entitlement under
Municipal Groups Successfully Lobby Appellate Court to Publish Decision. In our April 10, 2011 post, we discussed Center for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Fish and Game Commission, Case No. A127555 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 8, 2011). The decision involved a $258,800 fee award under California’s private attorney general statute which was reversed
Second District, Division 8 Believed Financial Factor Could Be Considered Based on Settlement Agreement, But Did Not Beiieve Ongoing Operational “Cut” Rationale Was Justified. A redevelopment agency in Rogel v. Lynwood Redevelopment Agency, Case No. B219626 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 2, 2011) (certified for publication) was exposed to up to $2.7 million
