No Evidence That Other Students Were Exposed To Activities Of Which She Complained.
In Stallo v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist., Case No. E081215 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 5, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff student discovered someone submitted false information to obtain federal monetary relief for her, with plaintiff returning the money and requesting defendants to investigate/clear her name. Plaintiff lost injunctive relief on her claims, but she did obtain a fraud verdict against one defendant and a negligence award against all defendants, recovering a total of $250,000. However, the trial court denied her request for a private attorney general fee award, finding none of the elements were met.
The appellate court affirmed, finding that plaintiff did not show a significant benefit for the public/large class of persons. (Leiserson v. City of San Diego (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 725, 738 [“[W]here only a litigant’s personal economic interests are advanced by a lawsuit, fees may not be awarded since the litigation does not significantly benefit a large class of persons.”]; Royball v. Governing Bd. Of Salinas City Elementary School Dist. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150-1151 [“[W]here the litigation primarily advanced petitioners’ personal economic interests, we cannot find a reasonable basis for the conclusion that a significant benefit was conferred on the public or a large class of persons.”].) Only plaintiff’s personal interests primarily were vindicated, with no evidence demonstrating that this type of activity had occurred with respect to other students. Put another way, a unique situation not deserving of 1021.5 fees.