Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General Fee Statute: Winning Litigant Can Get Compensation For Prevailing In Prior Administrative Or Ancillary Proceedings

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Plaintiff Losing Trespass Case Against Defendant Landlords Liable For Opposition Attorney’s Fees Under Broadly Worded Lease Clause

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Trial Court Improperly Struck Attorney’s Fees Prayer Where Complaint Demonstrated That Plaintiff Was The Catalyst For A Municipal Change In Position.

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

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. 

Can Attorneys Intervene In Certain Cases To Recover Fees When Clients Will Not Allow Them to File A Fee Petition Request?

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

Answer:  Yes, in FEHA and CCP 1021.5 Situations.             Generally, attorneys must file an independent collection action or enforce a contractual attorney’s lien in order to collect fees from an obstinate client, especially a client that will not allow an attorney to file a fee recovery motion against the non-prevailing side.  (See,

Plaintiff’s Attempted Vindication Of His Own Rights After Employment Termination Did Not Entitle Him To Recoup Fees Under Either The Civil Rights Fee-Shifting Provision Or The Private Attorney General Statute

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

Second District, Division Two So Rules in Case Where Ex-Police Officer Did Not Prove a Civil Rights Violation and Never Obtained Reinstatement of His Former Position in the Police Department.             Plaintiff, an ex-police officer in the City of Torrance, was terminated based on a domestic violence incident resulting in his conviction

Scroll to Top