Part 2 of 2 – We Finish Off With The Last Five Cases And An “Honorable Mention” Oh, the suspense … and the ball has not yet dropped from above Times Square. You have to go to our prior post to see the first part of this list. Here is the rest of […]
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 Peace Officers Assn., Case No. B204907 (Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), real party in interest was reinstated as an airport operations officers pursuant to an arbitration award, which was then vacated by the
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
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
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
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.
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 Oct. 9, 2008) (unpublished), a petitioner had spent years challenging Santa Cruz County's occupancy and rent restrictions imposed by the former
Fees Awardable if Claimant Can That Collateral Action Was “Related to the Action in Which Fees Are Sought and Useful to Its Resolution.” We have a category devoted to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, which codifies California’s private attorney general doctrine. Frequently in these cases, a prevailing plaintiff seeks fees, both for the
Second District, Division Four Determines Landlord Prevailed and Dismisses Other Technical Challenges to Major Portion of Fee Award. Tenant got caught up in an imbroglio with her Landlords when she moved her business into a residential apartment after the roof of her off-premises store collapsed. After being served with an eviction
Complaint Resulting In Governmental Changes Suggested Basis for Fee Award Under CCP section 1021.5. In our May 21, 2008 post, we explored Camenisch v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1698 (1996), which cautions against striking attorney’s fees prayer requests at the pleading stage unless a full opportunity for discovery has occurred.
