Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

In The News . . . . Judge Tentatively Awards $125,000 In Attorney’s Fees To Nonprofit Group And Against Caltrans

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), In The News

  Fee Award for Dispute Involving EIR on Cold Spring Canyon Bridge.      As reported on December 15, 2010 by the Indy Staff on the Santa Barbara Independent.com, Judge Thomas Anderle tentatively awarded Friends of the Bridge attorney’s fees of $125,000 in a dispute against Caltrans involving deficiencies in a final EIR relating to Cold

Private Attorney General Statute: Appellate Court Affirms Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Petitioner Winning An Auditing Reallocation of Oakland Measure Y Funds

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Neither Private Attorney General or Common Fund Doctrines Justified Fee Award.       Sacks v. City of Oakland, Case Nos. A126781/A126817 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2010) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published) involved a petitioner who, at the trial court level, won a mandate writ regarding the allocation and use of tax

Private Attorney General Statute: First District, Division 5 Finds It Can Resolve Significant Benefit Issue Itself But That Other Issues Need To Be Remanded For Resolution

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  $6 Million Fee Award Will Be Reassessed.       For all of your folks involved in public interest cases, the next decision is a good one to review in the private attorney general fee area.      Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Case Nos. A108410/A108478 (1st Dist., Div. 5

Private Attorney General Statute: $60,000 Fee Award To Winning Union Member Successfully Compelling Union To Conduct An Election Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Second District, Division 1 Finds Important Public Right Vindicated Beyond Member’s Own Interests.      In Burke v. Ipsen, Case Nos. B218286/B221436 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 29, 2010) (certified for publication), union member successfully obtained mandate compelling a union to conduct an election of officers and directors and to set aside recently amended bylaws of

Private Attorney General Statute: Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Trial Judge’s Refusal To Allow Supplemental Trial Fees To Plaintiffs That Obtained Appellate Success For CEQA Claims

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

Appellate Panel Also Has Good Things to Say for Appellate Attorneys—Their Work is Specialized and May Command Higher Fee Awards Despite Some Duplication With Trial Work.      Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. D056972 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 17, 2010) (certified for publication) is an interesting case mainly for

Private Attorney General Statute And Cases Pending: Serrano Case From Second District Accepted for California Supreme Court Review

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Fee Eligibility for Establishing Precedent on Challenged Practice is Key Issue.      In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., 184 Cal.App.4th 178 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2010), attorney’s fees were denied to a plaintiff successfully challenging certain court reporting charges and establishing legal precedent in the process.      On August 18, 2010,

Private Attorney General Statute: Second District, Division 3 Affirms Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Litigant Where It Alone Benefited

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Also, Fee Expenditure Was Not Disproportionate to Claimed Damages.      We have another case to add to our category “Private Attorney General Statute.” Here, the lack of benefit to a larger class of persons and failure to show disproportionate fee expenditures meant that fees were properly not awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Scroll to Top