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 […]

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             In Williams v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A162966 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff won $1.326 million in a jury verdict against County for a public property

Court Of Appeal Found That Real Party’s Contribution Was Duplicative Of City’s Opposition On The Controlling Issue.             In Oak Hill Park Co. v. City of Antioch (Let Antioch Voters Decide), Case No. A162604 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 18, 2022) (unpublished), real party in interest won a $66,725 private attorney general award based on

Factual Nature Of The Specific Issue Was Dispositive.             Litigants which win some relief against a municipality may be entitled to private attorney general fees under CCP § 1021.5.  However, there are several elements they must surmount, including a paramount concern that they vindicated a significant benefit on behalf of the public or a large

Success/Causation Elements Of Section 1021.5 Were Not Demonstrated.             In Companion Animal Protection Society v. Puppies4Less, Case No. E076858 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff sued certain defendants for selling animals to pet stores which were not obtained from nonprofit animal shelters or rescue groups.  Some defendants settled, others did not, and

Fee Award Was Less Than Requested $188,806.50.             Miner’s Camp, LLC v. Foresthill Public Utility District, Case No. C088828 (3d Dist. June 23, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how private attorney general awards will be allowed even where the litigant has some self-interest in the fight, as long as an award is not disproportionate and benefits others.

Trial Court Applied The Incorrect Legal Standard In Determining Causal Link For Defendant Providing The Primary Relief Sought By Plaintiffs When It Denied Plaintiffs’ Request For Fees Under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5 Based On The Catalyst Theory.             We discussed Dept. of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases, Case No. C091771 (3d Dist., May 11,

Plaintiff Failed To Meet Its Burden Of Proving Prevailing Party Status, Especially In Light Of Defendant’s Evidence That The Relief Plaintiff Sought Was Already Being Implemented Before Plaintiff Filed Its Action.             Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiff dismissed its action, regarding an unlawful stream obstruction that impaired fish passage, against defendant two

Trial Court Failed To Consider Whether Plaintiffs' Lawsuits Were The Catalyst For The Relief Obtained.             In Dept. of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases, Case NO. C091771 (3d Dist., May 11, 2022) (unpublished), lawsuits filed against Dept. of Water Resources regarding a project meant to improve the State’s water supply infrastructure were coordinated for trial,