Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: $2.317 Million Fee Request Properly Denied Where Nonprofit Petitioner Only Obtained Limited Relief With No Tangible Economic Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Significant Benefit Element Of Private Attorney General Statute Was Not Satisfied.                Nonprofit petitioner in The Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County v. Drager, Case No. C097016 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2024) (unpublished) brought a wide range of claims against governmental entities, obtaining limited relief on payment of loan reporting requirements with respect to […]

Private Attorney General: Fifth District Affirms Denial Of Section 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff Who Had A $1,036,728 Financial Incentive And $456,935.25 In Legal Fees.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Incentive, That Far Outweighed The Incurred Costs Of Litigation, Warranted Denial Of Fees, And Plaintiff’s Analysis of Heron Bay Did Not Change That Factor.             Recovery of attorney fees under California’s private attorney general doctrine, codified at CCP § 1021.5, is reserved for “litigants and attorneys who step forward to engage in public

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Insured Did Vindicate Important Rights For California Insureds By Obtaining Published Affirmance Of An Insured’s Right To Videotape Insurer’s Participants In An EUO.             In Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. A166946 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 30, 2024) (partially published), by a 2-1 vote, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s determination

Private Attorney General: Although All Factors But Financial Benefits Were Clearly Met, Remand Was Justified To Relook at Whitley Cost/Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

If Analysis Was OK, Nothing Wrong With The Amount Of The $582,927 Award.             In Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp., Case No. D080295 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2023) (published), a trial court determined that a school district should pay private attorney general fees to charter schools for prevailing

Private Attorney General: Nonprofit Defendant/Petitioner Obtaining Certification Of Fresno’s Measure P, In A Prior Appellate Reversal, Was Erroneously Denied § 1021.5 Fees As Against City

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Appellate Court Found That Private Attorney General Elements Were Met, Having Good Discussions Of The “Opposing Party,” Public Interest, And Interests of Justice Requirements.             In City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities, et al., Case Nos. F084662/F084666 (5th Dist. Dec. 26, 2023) (unpublished), a nonprofit defendant/petitioner Fresno Building Healthy Communities (FBHC) was denied

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Additional Defendants Were Determined To Be “Opposing Parties” Such That They Should Have Been Added As Liable For A Private Attorney General Fee Award

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

Additional Defendants Were Unified In Interest With Other Defendants Subject To The Fee Award.             To recover attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, the plaintiff must recover against “opposing parties.”  Taft v. Salinas, Case No. D081025 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2023) (unpublished) considered the scope of that language

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

Scroll to Top