California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases, C055104

In a fees dispute involving the private attorney general doctrine embodied in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, where two parties achieve the same relief acting essentially as private attorneys general, even though one of the parties is a public entity, there is no rational basis to conclude that the public entity is entitled to be rewarded for its success under section 1021.5, but the private party is not.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 03/26/2008
  • Published 03/26/2008


  • ROBIE, J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellant:
  • Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Joshua A.H. Harris, Oakland, and Marnie E. Riddle, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Golden Gate Audubon Society, Marin Audubon Society, San Joaquin Audubon Society, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, and Committee to Save the Mokelumne.

  • For Appellees:
  • Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mark W. Poole and Clifford T. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant State Water Resources Control Board.
Copied to clipboard