Awarding Costs and Fees

Useful Rulings on Costs and Fees

Recent Rulings on Costs and Fees

ZEKA RANCH ONE VS CITY OF ANTIOCH

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides that a court may award fees “to a successful party…in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement …are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out

  • Hearing

MICHAEL SEAN WRIGHT VS NEAL KELLEY, ET AL.

Real Party’s motion for fees under section 1021.5 is DENIED.

  • Hearing

EVA PATERSON VS. ALEX PADILLA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

) ^ Mandicino involved a motion for attomey's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 following a successful petition for writ of mandate brought to challenge ballot arguments in a municipal election. The appellate court held the petitioner was not entitled to attomey's fees because the action did not confer a significant benefit on the public, and it held the action did not will not mislead voters into believing that Proposition 16 allows quotas which are unconstitutional.

  • Hearing

EVA PATERSON VS. ALEX PADILLA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

(Grutter, supra, 539 U.S. at 322, 329.) 3 Mandicino involved a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 following a successful petition for writ of mandate brought to challenge ballot arguments in a municipal election.

  • Hearing

PARADA VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

They also seek a declaratory judgment to the same effect, and attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (Petition, pp. 7-8.) The City denies that the petitioners are entitled to any relief, because the charges do not qualify as taxes under section 1(e). (Answer, p. 11.)

  • Hearing

GLENN SPEARS VS SMART AND FINAL STORES LLC ET AL

Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1504-1517 the court allowed attorneys to intervene to obtain attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP § 1021.5 after petitioners obtained a declaration that a contract violated the stay provisions of Election Code § 9241. However, the court in Lindelli expressly noted: It may be that a trial court would be justified in denying intervention to an attorney seeking to move for fees when intervention would interfere with settlement on the merits.

  • Hearing

STEVE DIELS VS ELEANOR MANZANO, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 authorizes an attorney fee award to the “successful party” in an action that has resulted in the “enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FAIR EDUCATION SANTA BARBARA, INC., ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

(Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra Club (2008) 45 Cal.4th 309, 316–317.)

  • Hearing

TAMMY BROKAW VS JOVAN SANTIAGO ET AL

SMCL contends it did not discriminate (CCP § 51 and 52(a)-(b)), stalk, harass, threaten, batter, or perpetuate violence against the Plaintiff at all, let alone for her sex or gender (CCP § 52.4), or effectuated the type of conduct that would be subject to the unfair business practices law identified in her FAC (CCP § 1021.5). Indeed, some of the above causes were sustained. However, SMCL’s demurrer to her sexual harassment and gender violence causes of action were overruled.

  • Hearing

TAMMY BROKAW VS JOVAN SANTIAGO ET AL

SMCL contends it did not discriminate (CCP § 51 and 52(a)-(b)), stalk, harass, threaten, batter, or perpetuate violence against the Plaintiff at all, let alone for her sex or gender (CCP § 52.4), or effectuated the type of conduct that would be subject to the unfair business practices law identified in her FAC (CCP § 1021.5). Indeed, some of the above causes were sustained. However, SMCL’s demurrer to her sexual harassment and gender violence causes of action were overruled.

  • Hearing

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS MALAND

While ultimately unsuccessful, the litigation was precisely the type of enforcement action section 1021.5 was enacted to promote. ... We, therefore, cannot conclude the litigation was detrimental to the public interest such that imposing a fee award on SOHO would be appropriate. Consequently, we conclude the trial court* did not err in denying the Committee's motion for an award of section 1021.5 attorney fees." Id. at 162.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

YUMORI-KAKU V. CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Plaintiffs contend these costs can be 25 recovered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 as attorneys’ fees and also that 26 there is a growing consensus in federal courts that these costs are recoverable. The Court 27 disagrees. First, Plaintiffs are seeking to recover these expenses here as costs, not fees.

  • Hearing

GAIDO V. MCLAUGHLIN

Petitioner’s (Mary Gaido) Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to CCP § 1021.5 (filed on 7-13-18) is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

On July 5, 2018, the court set a hearing on August 16, 2018, for purposes of determining the successful party under section 1021.5. Angel Decl. ¶3. The court stated that other section 1021.5 issues of entitlement to attorneys’ fees would be determined later. Ibid. 3. Analysis All three of RBW, the City, and Intervenors BBR claim to be a successful party under section 1021.5.

  • Hearing

VOSBURG ET AL. V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Explanation: Detainee-Americans for Civic Equality (“DACE”) moves for attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 for its participation in this election contest.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUCILLE SAUNDERS ET AL VS CITY OF LA ET AL

Applicable Law CCP section 1021.5 (“section 1021.5”) codifies the “private attorney general” exception to the general rule that each side bears its own fees unless the parties contracted otherwise. See CCP §1021.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MAN FAN ZHANG VS DANIEL HONG DENG ET. AL.

Although not cited by the parties, there is legal authority under which it has been held error to strike from a pleading a request for attorneys’ fees under CCP § 1021.5, precisely because no prayer is required for this theory to be relied upon: “There is no requirement that the intent to seek attorney fees under section 1021.5 must be pleaded in the underlying action. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUTZ VS MICHAEL VU

. ******************************************* Plaintiffs' Motion (ROA # 155) for an order awarding attorney fees, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. As discussed below, attorney fees are awarded in the total reasonable amount of $80,268.75. Code of Civ. Proc. 1021.5. This amount is payable by Defendant County of San Diego.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARCH SCHMITT ET AL VS VINCENT BROWN ET AL

Schmitt prays for: 1) peremptory writ commanding respondents to grant his vacation cash-out benefit and include it in the calculation of his retirement pay; 2) an alternative writ of mandate to show cause why respondents should not do so; 3) compensatory damages, and 4) attorney fees pursuant to CCP § 1021.5 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants County and Wallar demur to the TAP on the grounds that petitioner has failed to state facts constituting a cause of action and the TAP is uncertain.

  • Hearing

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

Pappas claims that CCP § 1021.5 is unconstitutional as applied in awarding attorney fees to the winner of an election contest. Pappas did not challenge the constitutionality of CCP § 1021.5 on its face or as applied in this court or the court of appeal. He did not cite the U.S. Constitution or any federal cases dealing with constitutional issues.

  • Hearing

MARK SCHMITT ET AL VS VINCENT BROWN ET AL

The Court notes, however, that the determination as to whether fees are available under CCP § 1021.5 is a complex one, requiring much more information than the Court has before it on this motion to strike. That the petitioner/plaintiff has some financial incentive to pursue the action is not, of necessity, determinative of the entitlement to fees.

  • Hearing

MONA FIELD ET AL VS. DEBRA BOWEN ET AL

In order to be eligible for attorney fees under section 1021.5, a plaintiff must not only be a catalyst to defendant's changed behavior, but the lawsuit must have some merit?" Graham, 34 Cal.4th at 560-561 (emphasis added). Here, the lawsuit had no merit. Plaintiffs are not a "successful party" under CCP ? 1021.5. AB 1413 did not provide Plaintiffs with any relief: it was, in terms of the relief sought in this case, unnecessary in light of the Court of Appeal's holding that Election Code ?

  • Hearing

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

Because it determined that Farr is entitled to fees under CCP § 1021.5, the court of appeal did not address any entitlement to fees under the Voting Rights Act. The court of appeal did not mention the Civil Rights Act.)

  • Hearing

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

In reversing this court’s denial of Farr’s original motion for attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeal held that “a litigant’s personal nonpecuniary interests may not be used to disqualify the litigant from obtaining fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.” (Pappas v. Farr (Dec. 21, 2010, B219570) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 3 [“Pappas II”].)

  • Hearing

CRUZITO CRUZ VS SUSAN TSCHECH ET AL

Under section 1021.5, a court may award attorney fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest. However, section 1021.5 is inapplicable here since petitioner represented himself in the proceeding, and he is not an attorney. Although Mr.

  • Hearing

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.