Plaintiff Lost Restitution Claims Under The UCL, But They Were A Catalyst.
As any defense attorney knows in public interest or class action cases, a catalyst theory is something to pay close attention to. It may allow for recovery of private attorney general fees even if the plaintiff ultimately does not receive restitution.
Howard v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A., Case No. B333546 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2026) (unpublished) illustrates this point in the right circumstances. Plaintiffs obtained a ruling under an Unfair Competition Law case that deceptive fees were charged through burial contracts, but no restitution was ordered. However, the defendant did revise their contracts to address the deception issues. Defendant was the prevailing party for routine costs, but the issue focused on whether plaintiffs were entitled to private attorney general fees on a catalyst theory because corrective conduct was obtained although no restitution was ordered. The trial court answered “yes.” It awarded $1.5 million in fees out of a requested $2,649,141. The appellate court also answered “yes,” the fees were justified based on catalyst principles relating to private attorney general fee recovery. With respect to whether there was success, that occurred because success does not necessarily depend on a win vis-à-vis a trial. On the issue of whether significant persons were impacted, that occurred based on persons involved in 11 cemeteries.