Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Deadlines/Private Attorney General Statute: Substantial Awards For Successful Appellate Work Affirmed In Long Ongoing Litigation

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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may have come to a close in Vasquez v. State of California, Case No. D056598 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished), resolving […]

Private Attorney General: $7 Million In Potential Future Benefits Allows Denial Of Fee Request

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Private Attorney General Statute Two-Fer: Lower Court Decisions Granting And Denying Fee Recovery Affirmed

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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 Sept. 14, 2011) (unpublished).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

Special Fee Shifting Provision/Attorney General Statute: Apple’s Tax Refund Win Did Not Entitle It To Recovery Of $683,492.73

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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

Private Attorney General Statute: You Can Get 1021.5 Fees For Administrative Proceeding Work And Personal Stake Alone Does Not Disqualify You

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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).     

Private Attorney General Statute: Win On Technical Notice Issue, Not Substantive Merits, Did Not Translate Into Successful Party For CCP § 1021.5 Purposes

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $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.

Lots Of Fee Decisions On Variant Issues Come Out On June 21, 2011

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  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

Private Attorney General Statute: $627,796.74 Fee Award Reversed And Remanded For Facial Lodestar Miscalculation

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Private Attorney General Statute: April 2011 Center For Biological Diversity Decision Now Published

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Scroll to Top