However, Because Plaintiffs Entitled To Judgment On All Claims, Matter Remanded To See If Additional Trial Fees Should Be Awarded As Well As Calculation Of Winning Appellate Fees. Boy, oh boy, what appellate decisions can do with respect to fee awards. In California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Case […]
Ending Appellate Court Comment Urges Homeowners and HOAs To Work It Out, Rather Than Run To Court, Saying “Amen” To Trial Judge’s Closing Observation. In Artus v. Gramercy Tower Condominium Assn., Case No. A161265 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 30, 2022) (published), a homeowner sued an HOA over election voting rules and sale/leasing guidelines.
Also, Trial Judge Applied An Inapt Catalyst Theory To The Plaintiff’s 1021.5 Fee Request. In Community Venture Partners v. Marin County Open Space Dist., Case Nos. A161851/A162374 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 28, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed the granting of District’s motion to discharge a peremptory writ of mandate in a land
Traffic Correction In EIR Justified The Award. Once you prevail on a significant CEQA issue, fee entitlement under the private attorney general statute is likely the general rule, to the chagrin of municipalities and developers. However, the trial judge still has discretion to make reductions as in a normal civil fee dispute, as United
Private Enforcement Necessity Prong Does Not Require Causation, With The Litigation Vindicating Important Affordable Housing Rights For A Large Class Of People. Plaintiffs sued the City of Desert Hot Springs and related parties to force a long overdue obligation to revise the housing element of the city’s general plan. The city had missed numerous
City Looked Like It Made Changes Regardless of Lawsuit. Under CCP § 1021.5, public interest litigants—if satisfying multiple levels of necessary elements—can be awarded attorney’s fees for vindicating public interests under a catalyst theory. This usually means that the litigants inspired change by a government entity such that a bounty should be awarded. However,
Reason Was Pretty Simple—The Claiming “Successful” Party Was Not Upon Reversal. City of Gardena v. State Water Resources Control Board, Case No. G059466 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 22, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where certain litigants won CCP § 1021.5 fees after prevailing on a regional water board dispute. The total fees came
Future Losses Can Change The Private Attorney General Analysis. Petitioner in San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. Cal. State Lands Commission (Hanson Marine Operations, Inc.), Case No. A159693 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 17, 2021) (unpublished) did initially prevail in a dispute with the Commission over approval of several 10-year mineral extraction leases that authorized
$154,000 In Fees Went POOF! The appellate court in Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority, Case Nos. B303494 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 19, 2021) (published) reversed a CEQA petitioner’s win on a parking lot issue in entirety. Petitioner had won $154,000 in private attorney general statute fees (used
Implied Findings On CCP § 1021.5 Elements Will Suffice Legally. The school district in San Jose Unified School Dist. v. Rocketship Education, Case No. H045884 (6th Dist. Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished) successfully challenged a charter school zoning exemption, in a lower court ruling affirmed in an earlier published appellate decision. The District then obtained
