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             In City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, Case No. G061184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 14, 2023) (unpublished), Huntington Beach lost a constitutional challenge in a mandamus proceeding with the State of California over a series of laws affecting a […]

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 June 2, 2023) (unpublished), minor’s parents obtained writ relief by which their names were removed from the Civil Abuse Central Index after they were found not to be the perpetrator

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)

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). 

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

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

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