Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 v. City of San Diego, Case No. D057460 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 14, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff won a petition, not on substantive grounds, but on the fact that publication was one day short on a draft mitigated negative declaration.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

Lodestar/Private Attorney General Statute: Negative Multiplier Based On Perception Fee-Owing Government Agency Could Use Money To Fund Ongoing Operations Was No Reason To Reduce Lodestar

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  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

Private Attorney General Statute: Based On Partial Success Only, Trial Court Had Discretion To Award Reduced Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 6 Splits 2-1 In Affirming.      Plaintiff in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo, Case No. B224274 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 26, 2011) (unpublished) prevailed in a CEQA action involving a challenge to the County’s first stormwater pollution prevention ordinance. The trial court issued mandate, but

Private Attorney General Statute: $258,800 Fee Award Goes Up In Smoke (POOF!) Based On Karuk Decision

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

First District, Division 2 Uses Hunting and Boxing Analogies in Reversing Fee Award.      The next decision we survey involves a reversal driven by the same apppellate court’s earlier decision in Karuk Tribe of No. Calif. v. Calif. Regional Water Quality Control Bd., 183 Cal.App.4th 330, 364-369 (2010) [discussed in our March 30, 2010 post].

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

Scroll to Top