Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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 v. Diestel Turkey Ranch, Case No. A162702 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 1, 2023) (unpublished) is an opinion with many cross-over issues as identified in our main title to this post.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

Private Attorney General: Homeowners Prevailing In Malibu District Assessment Validation Battle Properly Denied Over $2.4 Million In Requested Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Whitley Financial Analysis Adopted By Lower Court Sustained On Appeal.             In Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement Dist. v. 31506 Victoria Point LLC, Case Nos. 304699 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 filed Aug. 2, 2022; posted Aug. 3, 2022) (published), a group of Malibu homeowners successfully prevailed in an assessment validation proceeding against District

Private Attorney General: Where Plaintiff Did Vindicate Users Of Dangerous Condition Area But Obtained A $1.326 Million Damage Award, Cost/Benefit Analysis Supported Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Was Not Unusual For Allowing A Fee Award Under Cases Which Did Allow Under Rare Circumstances Where A Benefit Exceeded Litigation Costs.             In Williams v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A162966 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff won $1.326 million in a jury verdict against County for a public property

Lodestar, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: FEHA Fee Recovery To Plaintiff’s Attorney Affirmed As Far As Reductions But Remand Issued To Determine Reasonable Hourly Rate Based On Out-Of-Town Rates

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff’s FEHA Request Was Reduced Drastically, But The Award Likely Will Go Up Some When Out-Of-Town Rates Are Considered—Although The $700,000 Award Was Substantial.             When you are doing appellate work on abuse of discretion issues, the primary issue may be whether the lower court used the correct legal principles as far as reaching its

Scroll to Top