Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

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

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Westmont College Is Now A Published Decision

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

Prevailing Section 1021.5 Parties Successfully Defending The Case On Appeal Are Allowed To Move For Attorney Fees Post-Appeal Even If The Trial Court Denied Their Pre-Appeal Fees Motion.             We discussed Doe v. Westmont College, Case No. B303208 (2d Dist, Div. 6) in our January 26, 2021 post.  The case was unpublished at the time,

Private Attorney General: $69,718 In § 1021.5 Attorney Fees Awarded To Attorney General Xavier Becerra After Defeating Petition To Have His Name Removed From The November 2018 Election Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Becerra’s Successful Defense Resulted In A Published Decision Enforcing An Important Public Right And Conferring A Significant Benefit On The General Public, And Becerra’s Personal Financial Burden Incurred In Defeating The Petition Outweighed Any Pecuniary Benefit Becerra Might Have Received If He Won The Election.             Plaintiff Eric P. Early (and his election committee) filed

Allocation, Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Application Of The Wrong Standard And Inappropriate Basis For Denying Prevailing Plaintiff’s Postappeal Section 1021.5 Motion For Fees Necessitated Remand

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

Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest.             In Doe v. Westmont College,

Costs, Private Attorney General, Reasonableness Of Fees: Petitioners, In Long-Standing San Francisco Bicycle Plan CEQA Challenges, Who Achieved Limited Success, Had Costs Properly Stricken And Recovered 50% Less Than Requested Once The Lodestar Was Reduc

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Bottom Line In This Case, Limited Success Will Impact Cost and Fee Recovery, Even In Public Interest Cases.             We have seen that costs and attorney’s fees in many public interest cases, including those under the private attorney general statute, can be quite large.  However, one should keep in mind that the cost and fee

Private Attorney General: Intervenor In Reverse-PRA Action, Where Only Limited Disclosure Of Publicly Available Documents Was Ordered, Did Not Satisfy Separate Significant Benefit Prong Of CCP § 1021.5

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Public Interest And Significant Benefit Prongs Of Private Attorney General Statute Must Be Satisfied Independently.             In Burgess v. Coronado Unified School Dist., Case No. D076263 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2020) (published), a reverse action under the California Public Records Act (PRA) was filed by a news outlet employee to enjoin District from

Private Attorney General: Denial Of Attorney Fees To Plaintiff Who Successfully Challenged University’s Sexual Harassment Determination Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

The Litigation Did Not Confer A Significant Benefit On A Large Class Of Persons And The Lack Of Substantial Evidence Necessary To Support University’s Administrative Decision Did Not Constitute Evidence Of Arbitrary And Capricious Conduct.             In Doe v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. A158704 (1st Dist., Div. 4 November 30, 2020)

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Validation Action Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Did Not Entitle Victor To Private Attorney General Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Losing City Was Free to Go Forward With The Sale, So The Victory Was Pyrrhic.              In City of Upland v. The Inland Oversight Committee, Case No. E073768 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished), City sought through a validation action to validate its agreement to sell part of Memorial Park to San Antonio

Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Unilateral Fee-Shifting Clause In DFEH’s Favor Preempted An Award Of Private Attorney General Fees To Prevailing Defendants

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

Specific Statute Prevailed Over More General One As Far As Fee Entitlement.             When two fee-shifting statutes collide, they sometimes can be reconciled but sometimes cannot—the latter was the conclusion in Dept. of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., Case No. F077802 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2020) (published).             There, defendants prevailed in

Scroll to Top