Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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.

Private Attorney General Statute: Sixth District Issues Scholarly Unpublished Decision Analyzing CCP Section 1021.5 Factors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Affirms $175,000 Fee Award Assessed Against City and Developer Jointly.      Court House Plaza Co. v. City of Palo Alto, Case Nos. H032872/H033204 (6th Dist. June 30, 2010) (unpublished) is a gem of a decision for anyone dealing with a fee award under California’s private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 

Private Attorney General Statute: Center For Biological Diversity Decision Now Certified For Publication In Entirety.

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

     In our May 28, 2010 post, we reported on the decision of Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, a decision that was partially published but was not certified for publication on the discussion of a fee award under California’s private attorney general statute. We can now report that the entire decision

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Winner Entitled To Substantial Fee Recovery As Well As Fees For Prevailing On Appeal

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

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $265,715.55 Fee Award Under CCP Section 1021.5.      In Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, Case Nos. D056652/D056648 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 25, 2010) (certified for partial publication; fee discussion not published), two nonprofit organizations successfully challenged the County of San Bernardino’s approval of an

Private Attorney General Statute: Prior Decision On Trial Court Discretion On Deposition Reporter Fees Did Not Result In A Public Benefit

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

Private Attorney General Statute: $68,480 Award—Half That Requested—Against Contra Costa County Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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.

Private Attorney General Statute: City Aligned With Class Action Plaintiffs In Defending Settlement On Appeal Was Not An “Opposing Party” For Purposes of CCP § 1021.5 Award

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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.

Private Attorney General Statute: Although Litigant Got Some Relief, Financial Burden Factor Was Not Satisfied

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Scroll to Top