California Court of Appeal

In case involving Prop. 139, judgment awarding plaintiff attorney fees, under a private attorney general theory, is affirmed over numerous claims including: 1) plaintiff was not a successful party within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 2) she neither enforced an important right affecting the public interest nor conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; 3) there was no necessity of private enforcement; 4) she made no prelitigation settlement demand; and 5) other claims of error.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/12/2006
• Published 04/12/2006

Judges

• McCONNELL, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Archer Norris, Thomas S. Clifton, Walnut Creek, Colin C. Munro, Sonny T. Lee;  Niddrie, Fish & Buchanan LLP, and Martin N. Buchanan for Defendant and Appellant., Law Offices of Robert Berke, Robert Berke and Joseph A. Pertel, Santa Monica, for Plaintiff and Respondent.