Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Civil Rights, Private Attorney General: On Remand From The California Supreme Court, Court Of Appeal Denies Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Party Under The Political Reform Act And Under A Separate Private Attorney General Theory

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

Plaintiff’s Suit Was Not Frivolous Under Political Reform Act, With Defendants Not Showing An Important Right/Significant Benefit Were Vindicated Under CCP § 1021.5.             In Travis v. Brand, Case No. B298104 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 19, 2023) (published), the 2/8 DCA had to consider whether prevailing defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees under the […]

Private Attorney General: $3,531,201.10 Attorney’s Fees Award To Plaintiff Successfully Being A Catalyst On Low-Income Housing Issue Was Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Decision Shows The Proper Way For A Plaintiff To Show It Was A Catalyst And To Substantiate Its Fee Request With Great Detail Before The Trial Judge.             For public interest and governmental lawyers, The Kennedy Comm’n v. City of Huntington Beach, Case Nos. E078403 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 11, 2023) (published)

Private Attorney General: Denial Of Fee Award Based On Significant Benefit Prong Was Erroneous As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Was Entitled To A 1021.5 Award, But Amount Will Be Determined On Remand.             In an earlier appeal, plaintiff had obtained a published opinion reversing her denial of a petition seeking public disability retirement benefits based on symptoms caused by her office environment, involving interpretation of provisions under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL). 

Private Attorney General: $239,479.65 Full Lodestar Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 Was Reversed As A Matter Of Law On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner Had An Enormous Financial Exposure Which Eclipsed Its Financial Costs In The Case And Related Proposition 65 Litigation.             Under CCP § 1021.5, a litigant seeking fees under this statute has the burden of satisfying all the predicate requirements.  This burden of proof must be satisfied; and, if not, a fee award can get

Costs, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Trespass: Prevailing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Obtains Attorney’s Fees Under Trespass Fee Shifting Statute Despite Receiving Nominal Damages And Also Receives Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998, Cases: Trespass

Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Denied Private Attorney General Fee Request In Opinion With Several Cross-Over Issues.              Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area etc. v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.             In

Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Winning Short-Term Rental Ban Dispute In California Coastal Properties Was Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Reason Was The Failure To Satisfy Whitley Financial Stake Aspect Of 1021.5.             If you know our website, go to Leading Cases, and look under Whitley (No. 14).  This is a key case for analyzing financial costs/benefits to satisfy one prong under California’s private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5).  Although a plaintiff won in Kracke v. City of Santa

Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff Properly Denied CCP 1021.5 Fees And $700,000 Section 998 Fees In Favor Of Some Defendants Reversed

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 998

No Public Benefit Conferred By Misleading Proposition 65 Temporary Warnings, And 998 Offer Releases Were Overbroad.      In Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, Case Nos. B309227 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 26, 2022) (published), defendants properly won a summary judgment in a Proposition 65 case when new regulations

Private Attorney General: Proposition 65 Plaintiff Gets A Redo On Fee Request After Trial Court Reduces Fee Award Based On Its Erroneous Conclusion That Her Litigation Achieved Limited Success.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Was Completely Successful On Her Proposition 65 Claims And Objectives, But Trial Court Improperly Valued Significance Of Plaintiff’s Success As Secondary To Litigating The Fee Award Because More Time Was Devoted To The Fee Award.             In Davia v. Be Wicked, Case No. A163076 (1st Dist., Div. 3 October 20, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff and

Private Attorney General: Plaintiffs’ Achievement Of Successfully Setting Aside EIR and Project Approvals Was Significant Enough, Even With Appellate Court’s Prior Limited Reversal, To Affirm Substantial 1021.5 Fee Award Without Remand

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$765,402.60 In Fees And $36,218.95 In Costs Were Affirmed, With No Remand Needed.             Plaintiffs achieving even limited success in setting aside EIR and project approvals can, and often do, obtain significant private attorney general awards, which are usually borne by the developer (because the developer has agreed to indemnify the involved government entity even

Scroll to Top