Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General Statute: Plaintiff’s Fee Award Was Not Justified Under “Catalyst Theory” Where Plaintiff Abandoned Case And Never Present Proof On The Merits

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $22,532 Fee Award Evaporates On Appeal.      In Borad v. Grossmont Union High School District, Case Nos. D056606/D057142 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 22, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff was awarded $22,532 in attorney’s fees under the “catalyst theory” of the private attorney general statute. The lower court apparently believed that plaintiff had obtained his relief […]

Private Attorney General Statute/Reasonableness Of Fees: 1985 California Attorney General Standards Provide Good Guidance Of Fee ReasonablenessUnder CCP § 1021.5

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

  Also Contains Good Guidelines in All Fee Proceedings.      We would like to thank reader James Wheaton, Esq., president of Environmental Law Foundation, for forwarding an August 23, 1985 memorandum circulated to all attorneys in the Office of the California Attorney General when that position was occupied by John K. Van de Kamp.     

Private Attorney General Statute: Denial Of § 1021.5 Fee Recovery For Writ Of Mandate Work Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Second District, Division 6 Follows Up Wilson Decision With Another Reversal In Unpublished Decision.      Yesterday, we did a post on Wilson, where the Second District, Division 6 (sitting in Ventura) reversed a portion of a private attorney general fee denial decision, determining that a portion of the work should be compensable. Some of that

Private Attorney General Statute: Second District, Division 6 Issues Interesting CCP § 1021.5 Apportionment Decision

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Appellate Court Remands Total Fee Denial Decision, Finding One Aspect of Case Meets Standards for Private Attorney General Fee Recovery.      Wilson v. San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Comm., Case No. B224269 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 14, 2011) (certified for publication) is an interesting allocation decision in the private attorney general statute (Code

Private Attorney General Statute: Cypress Marina Heights Decision of January 10, 2011 Is Now Published

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Sixth District Certifies Decision for Publication.      In our January 10, 2011 post on Monterey/Santa Cruz Building, etc. v. Cypress Marina Heights, Case No. H034143 (6th Dist. Jan. 10, 2011), we reviewed a decision awarding attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine in a construction prevailing wage ruling for 900 benefitted construction workers. We

Private Attorney General Statute: $73,167.50 Worker Prevailing Wage Construction Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Sixth District Finds that Construction Prevailing Wage Ruling For 900 Construction Workers Met CCP § 1021.5 Requisites.      Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP, Case No. H034143 (6th Dist. Jan. 10, 2011) (unpublished) involved a situation where plaintiffs won a proceeding against a defendant which acquired Ford Ord

Class Actions/Civil Rights/Private Attorney General/Settlements: California Lawyer Article Explores Negotiation Of Attorney’s Fees In Public Agency Cases

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Settlement

  Concurrent Negotiation of Substantive Relief and Fees in Public Agency Cases Is Allowable.      Adam W. Hofmann, an attorney in the San Francisco office of Hanson Bridgett, has written an article entitled “Negotiating Attorneys Fees” in the January 2011 edition of The California Lawyer. In it, he explains that California cases expressly reject any

Substantiation Of Fees And Private Attorney General Statute: $1,007,067 Fee Award Gets Scaled Down To $669,525 On Appeal

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

  Lack of Supporting Proof For Certain Time Frame Dictates Fee Reduction.      Defendant won an unusual unreasonable restraint on alienation battle over a buffer zone, leading the trial court to award fees of $1,007,067 under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5) in Greenlaw Grupe, Jr. Operating Co. v. Land

Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Attorney’s Decision Fees Decisions–Part 2 of 2.

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

     Here is the second installment of our top 20 decisions.      10. Jankey v. Lee, 181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (1st Dist., Div. 4 2010), review granted, No. S180890 (May 12, 2010) — authored by Presiding Justice Ruvolo; discussed in our Feb. 6, 2010 post.      Attorney’s fees are awardable to a prevailing defendant under Civil

Private Attorney General Statute: Winning District Supervisor Entitled As A Matter of Law To Award Of Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 6 Reverses Lower Court Denial of Fees.      Doreen Farr and Steven Pappas were candidates for the third district supervisor in Santa Barbara County. Ms. Farr was elected, and Mr. Pappas unsuccessfully contested the election pursuant to Elections Code section 16100(d), (f). Ms. Farr made a motion for attorney’s fees in

Scroll to Top