Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo, Case No. B224274 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 26, 2011) (unpublished) prevailed in a CEQA action involving a challenge to the County’s first stormwater pollution prevention ordinance.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

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

Scroll to Top