Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General Statute: $50,300.34 Fee Award To Individual Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Concessions of Defendant and Plaintiff’s Financial Impact Declaration Cinch the Award.      The next case illustrates how a litigant’s own concessions on public interest and a plaintiff’s declaration about financial impact play important roles in establishing the elements necessary to justify a fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general […]

Private Attorney General Statute: Moreno Valley Adjacent Property Owner Obtains $131,810.89 In Attorney’s Fees Against Appealing Developer in CEQA Case

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Fourth District, Division 2 Finds CCP Section 1021.5 Requirements Were Satisfied.      Under our category “Private Attorney General Statute,” we have explored the requirements for an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (After all, in a return to basics, the “American Rule” does allow a prevailing party to obtain

CCP 1021. 5 And Mootness: Appellate Court Determines Mootness Doctrine Does Not Preclude Review Of $78,897.95 Fee Award Against Clerk And Registrar, Reversing Fee Award Based On Merits Reversal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

  Second District, Division 5 Also Reverses Fee Award Against Clerk, Even Though Only Registrar Appealed the Merits Judgment.      Here is an interesting one for our appellate followers. It primarily deals with a mootness issue and its interplay with the fee award in the case.      In Carson Citizens for Reform v. Kawagoe, Case

POOF!: Arbitration and CEQA Fee Awards Fall With Reversal of Underlying Matters

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Two Appellate Courts Show That Fees May Rise and Fall With Later Dispositions. Arbitration—Burlage v. Superior Court, Case No. B211431 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 31, 2009) (certified for publication)      This case is going to attract attention, because Presiding Justice Gilbert (author of a 2-1 majority opinion) has taken on the principle that Moncharch

Private Attorney General Statute: No Public Interest/Significant Benefit Where Nonprofit Organization Obtained Further Review of Endowment Application Due To Computer Glitch, But Did Not Modify Endowment Policies

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

First District, Division Three Affirms Denial of Fee Request under CCP section 1021.5.      In Rural Media Arts and Education Project v. Hildreth, Case No. A123740 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished), nonprofit organization—headquartered in the old Masonic Hall in the downtown historic Mariposa district—applied for a grant of funds under the California

In The News and Follow Up On Past Posts Of Interest: Suleman Action And Choi/Great Park Updates . . . Plus, A Look At the New Court of Appeal Building in Santa Ana

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

Suleman Case—Guardian Ad Litem Appointment Reversed and Superior Court Judge Allows Petersen Suit to Continue.      On May 9, 2009, we reported on an action filed by child rights activist Paul Petersen, who had an objective to get a guardian appointed for the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. We have some updates for you on this

Private Attorney General: Trial Judge’s Fee Award Punctuated by Exclamation Point Punctured by Court of Appeal

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

First District, Division Two, Concludes Land Use Litigation Vindicated Only a Private Interest.      In its tentative decision in this land use case, the Mendocino County trial court stated the State Water Resources Control Board’s “handling of Rustic’s application has been unconscionable!”  [garish red color added to exclamation point for emphasis by blogger]. It added,

CCP 1021.5: RiverWatch Decision Is Published

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fourth District, Division 1 Decision Is Now Citable.      In our June 15, 2009 post, we discussed RiverWatch v. County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health, where the Fourth District, Division 1 Court of Appeal affirmed a $239,620 attorney’s fees award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.      On July 2, 2009, the

Private Attorney General Statute: CEQA Winner Denied Fees Where Win Was On Technical Issues Of Relatively Narrow Scope

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Third District Affirms Fee Denial Where Project Scope Went Ahead After Correction of Minor Blemishes.      California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5) requires a significant public benefit as an indispensable element for fee recovery. These requests are often brought by winners in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code,

Private Attorney General Statute: The Great Park Search For CEO Document Disclosure Requires Award Of Fees To Minority Directors

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Fourth District, Division Three Reverses Trial Court Denial of Fees Under CCP Section 1021.5 in Orange County Superior Court Action.      “The Great Park”—the plan to develop the former El Toro Marine property into a park—has drawn widespread publicity given charges that Larry Agran and other Irvine City Council members have dominated the Orange County

Scroll to Top