Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Third District Affirms Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Attorneys Winning Prior Gang Injunction Due Process Challenge

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General Statute: $239,620 Fee Award Affirmed In Favor Of Nonprofit Group/Pala Band For Successful CEQA Challenges To Proposition C

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Attorney’s Fee Awards And Fee Requests In The News … Redwood City Gets Tagged, E*TRADE Financial Will Seek Large Fees, and Bluetooth Class Action Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Seeks Fees Drawing Numerous Objections

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Off Topics

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Trial Court Properly Awarded Plaintiffs $336,350 In Fees Rather Than Requested $1.49 Million (And Correctly Denied 2.0 Multiplier)

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

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

Private Attorney General Statute: Lodestar Fee Award Affirmed, But Multiplier Determination Remanded For Further Consideration

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Scroll to Top