Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Attorney Representing Himself, And Showing No Separate Retainer With Wife, Was Denied Attorney’s Fees For Prevailing Against Lender On Default Interest Penalty Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees.                In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his […]

Private Attorney General: Petitioner Was Correctly Denied 1021.5 Fee For Obtaining Removal Of His Name From Gang Law Enforcement List

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner Vindicated Mainly His Personal Interests And No Broad Pernicious Policy Proven Against L.A.’s Sheriff Department.                Petitioner sought private attorney general fees in Richardson v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B333555 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) against the LASD after obtaining a court order removing his name as a suspected

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Petitioners Obtaining Annulment Of TROs On Indoor Gatherings During COVID Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

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

$433,905 Was The Ask, But Nothing Awarded At Trial Level, Affirmed On Appeal.                Financial incentives and avoidances are always at play in private attorney general fee requests.  Unfortunately, petitioners drew the short end of the stick at both the trial and appellate levels in Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court (6th Dist. Sept.

Private Attorney General: Where Litigants Dismissed Claims Against Each Other, After Denial Of A Class Certification Motion, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Receiving No Judicial Relief Or $14 Million Class Action Objective Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Published Decision Only Decided Plaintiff Had To Be Registered With State Bar, But It Did Not Adjudicate A Key Unclean Hands Defense.                In LegalMatch.com v. Jackson, Case No. A169115 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished), defendant defended a suit by plaintiff LegalMatch.com after defendant did not pay subscription fees for connecting clients

Private Attorney General: Defendant Who Provided Appellate Amicus In A Proposition 65 Case Finding No Violations Properly Was Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Against A Plaintiff Dismissing The Case After Issuance Of The Earlier Appellate Opinion

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Reason Was That Defendant’s Avoidance Of Civil Penalties And The Costs Of Warnings Outweighed Any Important Right, Which Was Coincidental To Its Economic Interests.                In Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Bio Hazard, Inc., Case No. A168332 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 12, 2024) (unpublished), a plaintiff dismissed a Proposition 65 case against defendant after

Private Attorney General: $105,797.40 Fee Award To Some Validation Action Challengers Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fifth District Affirmed After Independent Review Of Significant Benefit Prong Because Remand Would Be Futile Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard.                In Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested etc., Case No. F085374 (5th Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth District reviewed an attorney’s fees award against Water District and in favor of

Class Actions, Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: $1.174 Million Award To Class Counsel In Fair Debt Collection Practices Case Affirmed On Appeal

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

Significant Benefit Incurred, If Injunctive Relief Was Considered, And Other Objections Were Not Specific To Justify Any Reduction.                In Doskocz v. ALLS Lien Services, Case No. A166299 (1st Dist., Div. 1 May 20, 2024) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), class counsel prevailed on behalf of plaintiffs in case involving some novel and complex issues

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Section 1021.5 Fee Request Properly Denied Where Trial Court Concluded That Its Government Claim/Suit Did Not Inspire Government Action On Health Permits During The Covid Pandemic

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Substantial Evidence Was The Review Standard, So The Factual Finding Submarined A Catalyst Theory Challenge On Appeal.                In Costeaux French Bakery, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A166727 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sought private attorney general’s fees under a catalyst theory.  What basically happened was that the County

Private Attorney General: Public Agency Prevailing Against Private Company Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees For Succeeding In Groundwater Contamination Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plain Meaning Of Section 1021.5 Supported The District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Plaintiff Agency.                In Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., Case No. 22-55727 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2024) (published), plaintiff water agency certainly prevailed against defendant company upon various torts and CERCLA based on alleged groundwater contamination.  Agency moved for

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff’s Jury Trial Win Almost Completely Absorbed By Successful Defense 998 Offer After Reduction For Post-Offer Expenses

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

Also, Plaintiff’s Suit Benefitted Herself, So No Section 1021.5 Fees Were Warranted.                Nairobi v. Watkins, Case Nos. A164665 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2024) (unpublished) shows the potency of a successful defense CCP § 998 offer:  plaintiff’s $101,768.89 jury award got reduced to just $3,772.87.  The lower court also denied plaintiff’s

Scroll to Top