Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General Statute: Northern California District Judge Awards CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Of $1,423,127 To Plaintiffs Recovering $153,150 Against Taser Manufacturer

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

Judge Refuses to Apply a Multiplier and Denies Costs to Successful City in Same Lawsuit.      Robert C. Heston, Jr. died after Tasers were deployed against him by Salinas police officers, death resulting in the aftermath of cardiac arrest. His mother/father and estate executor sued Salinas, the individual police officers, and TASER International (the manufacturer […]

Private Attorney General Statute: Veterans Group Receives $20,000 Out Of Requested $112,875 In Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Veterans Group’s Failure to Provide Adequate Appellate Record Left Intact Lodestar Reduction by Trial Court.      The opening sentence of the next case, involving a reduced fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, certainly caught our attention: “This is a skirmish over attorney fees after the parties settled the underlying case.”     

Private Attorney General Statute: Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Award Of $43,410.20 To Winning Plaintiff

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

First District, Division 4 Rejects Plaintiff’s Bid To Capture Full $272,581.10 in Fees That Were Incurred, Applying a Negative Multipler Instead.      Plaintiff Tanzel won a facial constitutional attack and preemption challenge to a Richmond ordinance authorizing the city to seize and forfeit vehicles used to solicit prostitution or to buy drugs. In a prior

CCP Section 1021.5: Airport Operations Officer Does Not Obtain Private Attorney General Statutory Fees Because Focus of Action Was On Advancement of His Own Personal Interests

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Six Also Determines No Fees Awardable Under Government Code section 800.      In County of Ventura v. Ventura County Prof. Peace Officers Assn., Case No. B204907 (Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), real party in interest was reinstated as an airport operations officers pursuant to an arbitration award, which was then vacated by the

California Supreme Court Rejects Categorical Rule That Plaintiff Must Have Engaged In Reasonable Settlement Efforts In Seeking CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Under Noncatalyst Cases

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Unanimous Court in Vasquez v. State of California Adopts A More Flexible Rule and Equitable Consideration of This Factor in the Noncatalyst 1021.5 Context.      In our category "Cases Under Review," we noted that the California Supreme Court had accepted review of Vasquez v. State of California, which presented the issue of whether plaintiff, in

CCP Section 1021.5 Awards: Unlicensed In Pro Per Plaintiff Cannot Be Awarded Fees, But Fees Incurred By Attorney Assisting In Pro Per Plaintiff Are Recoverable

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

Second District, Division Four Clarifies Scope of Fee Authorization in In Pro Per Plaintiff Situations and Denies Nonstatutory Costs Requested by Plaintiff.      In pro per plaintiff, who was not a licensed attorney, successfully petitioned for mandate against the City of Agoura Hills City Council, seeking her attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party

CCP Section 1021.5: $403,548 Fee Award Sustained As Not Being Excessive In Nature

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

First District, Division Three Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Awarding Substantial Fees Under Section 1021.5.      Uphold Our Heritage, an organization of local citizens and architects/authors from around the world, successfully brought a mandamus action against Town of Woodside and Mr. Jobs, an individual seeking a permit to demolish the historic Jackling House (built

Private Attorney General Statute (CCP Section 1021.5): Trial Court Properly Declines To Award Fees To Prevailing CEQA Plaintiff Where The Prior Decision Was Not Proven To Benefit A Large Group of Persons

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Standard of Review

First District, Division Four Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Fees Based on the Lack of Proof of a Large Class Benefit in a “One-Off” Situation.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the so-called private attorney general statute, is a well-recognized exception to the American rule that parties bear their own litigation costs.

Sixth District Remands Matter To Trial Court For Purposes of Determining If Petitioner Was Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award Under CCP Section 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Transferred Back to Appellate Court Based on Amendment Was Remanded Back to Lower Court for Crucial Determinations on Fee Entitlement.      In Travis v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H029771 (6th Dist. Oct. 9, 2008) (unpublished), a petitioner had spent years challenging Santa Cruz County's occupancy and rent restrictions imposed by the former

Scroll to Top