Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of § 1021.5 Attorney Fees To Plaintiff Achieving A Significant Public Benefit

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Third District Applied The Standard For Determining Necessity Of Private Enforcement, Where The Attorney General Performs Its Function, Set Forth In Committee to Defend.             After the Attorney General filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate alleging defendant violated the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Rivers […]

Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award To Plaintiffs Of $66,345.50 In Section 1021.5 Attorney Fees Where Plaintiffs’ Personal Benefit Outweighed Plaintiffs’ Litigation Costs.

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Significant Public Benefits Achieved In This Case Were Very High – Impacting Over 7,500 Water District Customers Facing An Unconstitutional Rate Increase Of Approximately 200%.             In KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District, Case No. C088824 (3rd Dist., May 28, 2021) (published; fee discussion unpublished), plaintiffs succeeded in their petition for writ

Private Attorney General: $129,000 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award In Groundwater-Extraction Cap Decision Was No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Even An Objective Whitley Analysis Justified The Lower Court Decision, Especially Where The Ultimate Award Was Less Than The Requested $240,000 In Fees.             Under our category “Private Attorney General,” we have posted on numerous decisions on fee awards under CCP § 1021.5.  Many involve the costs/benefit “financial prong” analysis required under Conservatorship of Whitley,

Private Attorney General: Denial Of $250,000 Fees Request To Prevailing Respondent In Health Care Clinic Turf Battle Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Respondent Had Too Much Of A Pecuniary Interest, Even As A Non-Profit With Respect To Stake In The Litigation.             Inyo County Local Agency Formation Commission v. Southern Mono Healthcare Dist., Case Nos. C085138/C086087 (3d Dist. May 13, 2021) (unpublished), involved a mandate petition filed by a petitioner against Southern Mono in what was, in

Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement

Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial.             Following a 19-day bench trial in The Sonoma Land Trust v. Thompson, Case No. A159139 (1st

Private Attorney General: Even Though CHP Violated Detainee Policy On Medical Treatment, The Result Was Factually Sensitive Such That CCP § 1021.5 Fees Were Properly Denied

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Although Many Of The Factors Were Present, Absence of Vindication Of An Important Right Affecting The Public Interest Was A Correct Conclusion By The Lower Court.             In Frausto v. California Highway Patrol, Case No. A159504 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 22, 2021) (unpublished), as often is the case, the case ultimately came down to

Appeal Sanctions, Private Attorney General: 4/1 DCA Denies Requests For Appeal Sanctions And Private Attorney General Fees To Derivative Action Plaintiffs That Were Successful In Proving Former President/CEO’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Although Unsuccessful, Former President/CEO’s Arguments On Appeal Were Not Objectively Without Merit So As To Rise To The Level Of Frivolity Justifying Sanctions, And Plaintiffs Forfeited Their Claim To § 1021.5 Private Attorney General Fees By Not Making It Before The Trial Court.             In A&B Market Plus, Inc. v. Arabo, Case No. D073850

Private Attorney General: No Abuse of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial Of § 1021.5 Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Couple In Mandamus Action Compelling The City Of Los Angeles To Revoke Permit Issued To Neighbor

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Trial Court Concluded Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Any Of The Three Requirements Affecting Eligibility For A Fees Award Under Section 1021.5, But Their Failure To Meet The Required Showing That The Financial Burden Of Private Enforcement Made The Award Appropriate Was Alone A Sufficient Basis For Denial.             In Boppana v. City of

Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case.             In Sargeant v. Board of Trustees of The California State University,

Cases Under Review, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Regents Opinion Depublished

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

California Supreme Court Denied Review, But Depublished On Its Own Motion.             On June 10, 2020 and July 1, 2020, we posted on Doe v. Regents, 51 Cal.App.5th 531 (2020), where the 2/6 DCA reversed denial of CCP § 1021.5 fees to a UCSB student who successfully obtained reversal of an interim suspension and reinstatement

Scroll to Top