Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Civil Rights, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Obtaining Of Prior Mandamus Relating To Her Nursing License Did Not Mean She Was Entitled To Private Attorney General Or Civil Rights Fees

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

Her Win Did Not Benefit A Large Class Of Persons, And Her Mandamus Writ Petition Was Not Litigated As A Federal Civil Rights Claim.             In Valencia v. Board of Registered Nursing, Case No. A164976 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 30, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained a mandamus petition win vacating certain discipline imposed by defendant […]

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Non-Profit Properly Awarded CCP § 1021.5 Fees For Invalidating A Local Ordinance Which Lowered Property Intensity In Light Of Housing Shortage Concerns

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

1.25 Multiplier On Merits Work Was Sustained On Appeal.             Plaintiff non-profit in Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City, Case No. B321477 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 27, 2023) (published) invalidated a Culver City ordinance reducing the intensity of land use as being violative of California’s housing shortage dictates.  Then, the

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: UC Davis Student, Whose Suspension Was Overturned Through Administrative Writ Proceeding, Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees, But Matter Remanded To See If Fees Warranted Under Gov. Code § 800

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

Appellate Court Disagrees That An Investigation Has To Be Wholly Arbitrary Or Capricious For Section 800 Purposes.             In Doe v. Atkinson, Case No. A166145 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 19, 2023) (published), a lower court in an administrative writ proceeding overturned the one-year suspension of a UC Davis junior for violating sexual harassment principles,

Private Attorney General: Where Petitioner Had Limited Success And Lost Its Primary Litigation Objectives In CEQA Action, Lower Court Did Not Err In Reducing Requested Fees By About 90% And Denying A Positive Multiplier Request For One Firm’s Work

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$37,346.30 Was The Fee Award From The $225,683 Lodestar Request Plus 1.5 Multiplier For One Component Of The Fee Request.             Limited success and excessive fee requests, even in a CEQA context, confer considerable discretion on a lower court to fashion an appropriate fee award under California’s private attorney general statute.  These factors led to

Private Attorney General: $32,496.75 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Request Against County Clerk And Real Party In Interest (RIP) Properly Denied Because They Were Not “Opposing Parties” And No Private Enforcement Necessity Was Present

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

A Dissenting Justice Believed RIP Was An “Opposing Party,” And Would Have Remanded To The Lower Court To Assess If Other Elements Of Section 1021.5 Were Satisfied.             In Holloway v. Wylie, Case No. H050376 (6th Dist. Sept. 12, 2023) (unpublished), petitioner prevailed on an unopposed mandate petition to delete from a voter information guide

Private Attorney General: Denial of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Prevailing Short-Term Rental Plaintiff Justified On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Did Not Satisfy The Financial Incentive Statute Standards—Too Much Skin In The Game.             In Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, Case No. B314744 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 15, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff won a short-term rental dispute against the Manhattan Beach, but lost a remand request for attorney’s fees under the private attorney

Private Attorney General: $38,733.75 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 To Mobile Home Park HOA And Against Mobile Home Park Owner Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

HOA Was Dismissed On County’s Demurrer Such That It Was Successful, Vindicating A Broader Interest Of Mobile Home Park Residents Throughout The County Because They Needed To Be Part Of The Mobile Park Owner’s Judicial Writ Proceeding Case.             In Pinto Lake M.H.P., LLC v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H050374 (6th Dist. July

Costs, Private Attorney General: In Case Involving Extension Of 241 Toll Road Near San Clemente, 4/2 DCA Affirms Denial Of 1021.5 Fees To HOA, Reverses And Remands Denial Of Fees To Environmental Parties, And Affirms Award Of Costs Against HOA

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

Lots Of Moving Parts Here, But The Remand For Environmental Parties Is Not An Automatic Endorsement Of Receiving 1021.5 Fees.             City of San Clemente v. Department of Transportation et al., Case No. E077153 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2023) (published) arose out of the Corridor Agency’s approved extension of State Route 241 (known

Private Attorney General: One Intervenor Garners $143,555 In CCP § 1021.5 Fees, While Another Intervenor Not Having A Direct Interest Properly Denied 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

First Intervenor’s Fee Award, However, Was One With A 75% Lodestar Reduction.             In City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, Case No. G061184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 14, 2023) (unpublished), Huntington Beach lost a constitutional challenge in a mandamus proceeding with the State of California over a series of laws affecting a

Private Attorney General: CCP § 1021.5 Award To Minor’s Parents For Obtaining Removal From Civil Abuse Central Index Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Matter Only Really Impacted The Parents Themselves, Not A Larger Class Of Persons.             In Ford v. Stanislaus County, Case No. F083828/F084205 (5th Dist. June 2, 2023) (unpublished), minor’s parents obtained writ relief by which their names were removed from the Civil Abuse Central Index after they were found not to be the perpetrator

Scroll to Top