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
First District, Division 1 Rejects State’s Challenges to Amount of Fee Award. In an earlier appeal, certain plaintiffs successfully enjoined enforcement of certain legislation allowing for incarceration for drug-related probations violations because such a sanction was inconsistent with Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000). Plaintiffs also successfully defended
Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different
Sometime during the week of December 14, 2009, Merced County Superior Court Judge Brian L. McCabe ruled that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had to pay $69,400 in attorney’s fees to Americans for Safe Access, a non-profit group, in a lawsuit against the DMV for a policy of unjustly revoking derivers’ licenses of
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
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
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
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
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
