Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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             In Davia v. Be Wicked, Case No. A163076 (1st Dist., Div. 3 October 20, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff and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

Private Attorney General: $66,725 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award To Real Party In Interest Reversed Under Private Enforcement Necessity Prong

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: Although Vindicating A Conceptually Important Interest, The Discretion Invested In The Governmental Entity On A Fact-By-Fact Basis Properly Supported A Trial Court’s Refusal To Award Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Private Attorney General: Lower Court Properly Denied CCP § 1021.5 Fee Request By Plaintiff Which Dismissed Its Complaint Without Showing That Nonsettling Defendants Changed Their Behavior As A Result Of The Lawsuit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Scroll to Top