Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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             In City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, Case No. G061184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 14, 2023) (unpublished), Huntington Beach lost a constitutional challenge in a mandamus proceeding with the State of California over a series of laws affecting a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 June 2, 2023) (unpublished), minor’s parents obtained writ relief by which their names were removed from the Civil Abuse Central Index after they were found not to be the perpetrator

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

Scroll to Top