Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 3 Affirms Denial of Fees in Split Decision.      In Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1014 (2008) (Serrano I), the Second District, Division 3 decided that a trial court in a pending action does have authority to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a

First District, Division 3 Rejects Both Procedural and Substantive Attacks to Fee Award.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 is California’s private attorney general statute, allowing fee shifting in certain public interest cases. You can learn more by accessing our “Private Attorney General Statute” category on the left hand side of our home page.

Fourth District, Division 1 Publishes Opinion on Unique Issue and Decides Equitable Principles Cannot Justify Fee Recovery.      Although one might chalk up this next one to an appellate court having fiscal savvy for the plights of cash-strapped governmental entities, we digest it so you make your own opinion on the result.      McGuigan v.

  First Division, Division 2 Overturns Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5.      Do not think for a moment that appellate courts do not realistically assess fee awards, both from legal and pragmatic angles. The next case shows that a fee award under CCP § 1021.5 will not be sustained where it was, at best,

Lower Court Can Evaluate Factor Under Traditional Analysis, Not Having to Use More Nuanced L.A. Police Protective League Test—Especially Where Nuanced Test Not Raised Below.      This next one goes to show you that waiver can be a bitter bill to swallow—make sure you raise potential winning back-up arguments before the trial court or risk