Although the decision actually involves interesting issues about the constitutionality of legislative enactments relating to redevelopment agencies, Cal. Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, Case No. C064907 (3d Dist. Jan. 24, 2013) (published) did hold that a $315,622.74 fee recovery under California’s private attorney general statute had to be reversed. Reason? The financial burden element of CCP § 1021.5 carried an evaluation of the financial stake of the organization’s members to properly analyze the individual stakes in the litigation on this prong of the private attorney general statute.