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 […]
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,
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
Court of Appeal Denies Fees in a Splintered Unpublished Opinion. We would like to thank attorney Amitai Schwartz, who practices in Emeryville, for alerting us to an interesting unpublished decision from the Third District that concerned an appeal of denial of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. This cause actually resulted
Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects Public Interest and Significant Benefit Challenges to Fee Award. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute) allows a litigant to obtain attorney’s fees where the requesting party shows that the litigation (1) served to vindicate an important public right, (2) conferred a significant benefit on
Redwood City Assessed About $260,000 Under Private Attorney General Statute. Redwood City lost a CEQA challenge by local attorney Joe Carcione (son of Joe Carcione, the Green Grocer) who sued arguing that the EIR was inadequate for the “Downtown Precise Plan,” a plan with a vision for up to 2,500 new high-rise housing units
First District, Division 5 Determines Trial Court Properly Applied Serrano III Factors. Even under fee-shifting, public interest statutes, our California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 255, 49 (1977) (Serrano III) mandated that multiple factors be used to increase or decrease a lodestar figure requested by victorious litigants. In the next case
First District, Division 1 Suggests Trial Courts Should Explain Multiplier Determinations With Some Specificity. For all of you attorneys practicing in areas that may trigger application of the private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5), the next case will be of great interest. Not only does it highlight some discrepancies in
Sixth District Also Finds No Abuse In Fee Award In Previous Action Under Private Attorney General Statute. The next case involves the extent to which successful attorneys in a plaintiff’s class action should be awarded fees for amicus curiae work in another action that dealt with the same issues and eventually led to a
Citizens Group Awarded Over $175,000 in Fees For Successful Attack of Santa Barbara Proposed Housing Project. Citizens Planning Association (CPA) were awarded over $175,000 in attorney’s fees ($117,228 lodestar, based on four attorneys charging $350 an hour, plus a $60,000 multiplier add-on) for successfully attacking the City of Santa Barbara’s environmental analysis of the
