Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General/Reasonableness Of Fees: Attorneys Representing Public Interests Entitled To Same Compensation As Private Practicing Attorneys In Community

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

  $313,000 Fee Award Affirmed on Appeal.      Nonprofit interests won a mandate proceeding requiring the City of Redondo Beach to put a local coastal progress amendment to a public vote. Plaintiffs then requested an attorney’s fees award of $354,978.12 under California’s private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5), which included a .25 multiplier. City

Private Attorney General Statute: Plaintiff Properly Denied Fee Recovery Where Reversal Of Prior Sanctions Award Had No Causal Connection To Subsequent Governmental Action Relating To Church

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Scholarly Unpublished Decision Shows Several Elements of CCP § 1021.5 Not Met.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

Private Attorney General Statute/Section 998: Fifth District Reverses Fee Denial For Ex-Chowchilla Police Chief Winning Prior Published Decision On POBRA Rights

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998

  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,

Private Attorney General: Port Of Oakland Engineer’s Reinstatement Via An Administrative Writ Proceeding Vindicated His Personal Interest Only

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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 A129306/A130030 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 16, 2011) (unpublished).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

Private Attorney General Statute: $336,800 In Fees And $8,400 In Costs Appropriately Awarded Against Orange County In Jaramillo Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Private Attorney General Statute: Supreme Court Reverses Denial Of Fees To Deposition Reporters, Clarifying Scope of Joshua S. In The Process

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

POOF!: $260,000 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FEES AWARD GOES AWAY WITH PARTIAL REVERSAL OF MANDATE PETITION

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       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

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

Scroll to Top