necessity and financial burden requirement in California

2008Indeed, in the absence of some concrete personal interest in the issue being litigated, the putative plaintiff would lack standing to bring an action." ( Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 321, fn. 11 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 900 , 667 P.2d 704 .) Annette interprets this language as signifying that when a party has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation, it will automatically satisfy the necessity and financial burden requirement.

2008Indeed, in the absence of some concrete personal interest in the issue being litigated, the putative plaintiff would lack standing to bring an action." ( Press, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 321, fn. 11 , 193 Cal.Rptr. 900 , 667 P.2d 704 .) Annette interprets this language as signifying that when a party has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation, it will automatically satisfy the necessity and financial burden requirement.

2023The Trial Court Did Not Properly Examine Whether the Necessity and Financial Burden of Private Enforcement Renders a Fee Award Appropriate The third and final prong of the analysis considers whether “ ‘the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement renders the award appropriate.’ ” (Save Our Heritage, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 159 .) Our Supreme Court has explained that “the necessity and financial burden requirement ‘ “really examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful p

2021Necessity and Financial Burden of Private Enforcement The necessity and financial burden requirement “ ‘ “examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.” ’ ” (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1214 .) It is the financial burden issue that is disputed on appeal.

2011(Sharon S. v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 417, 422, fn. 2 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699 , 73 P.3d 554 ].) “As this court has elaborated with respect to th[e] third requirement (. . . sometimes referred to as the necessity and financial burden requirement): ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citation.]” ’ (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p.

2010As has been observed, the necessity and financial burden requirement “ ‘really examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.’ ” (Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1348 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 550 ] (Lyons), quoting Pearl, Cal. *1215 Attorney Fee Awards (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2004) § 4.31, p. 117.) The “necessity” of private enforcement “ ‘ “ ‘looks to the adequacy of public enforcement and seeks economic equalization of representation in cases where p

2010(See, e.g., Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 563, 573 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ].) The second prong of the inquiry addresses the “financial burden of private enforcement.” In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. “ ‘An award on the “private attorney general” theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, w

2010(See, e.g., Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 563, 573 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ].) The second prong of the inquiry addresses the “financial burden of private enforcement.” In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. “ ‘An award on the “private attorney general” theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, w

2014Our Supreme Court has explained this prong as follows: “In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citat

2009(Save Open Space Santa Monica Mountains v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 235, 247 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 ].) The trial court’s application of the financial burden criterion involves a “realistic and practical comparison of the litigant’s personal interest with the cost of suit.” (FUTURE, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 515 .) The written briefing on the attorney fee request focused initially on whether Pala Band had a financial interest in seeking the writ of mandate.

2010As has been observed, the necessity and financial burden requirement “ ‘really examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.’ ” (Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1348 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 550 ] (Lyons), quoting Pearl, Cal. *1215 Attorney Fee Awards (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2004) § 4.31, p. 117.) The “necessity” of private enforcement “ ‘ “ ‘looks to the adequacy of public enforcement and seeks economic equalization of representation in cases where p

2010As has been observed, the necessity and financial burden requirement “ ‘really examines two issues: whether private enforcement was necessary and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.’ ” (Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Assn. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1348 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 550 ] (Lyons), quoting Pearl, Cal. *1215 Attorney Fee Awards (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2004) § 4.31, p. 117.) The “necessity” of private enforcement “ ‘ “ ‘looks to the adequacy of public enforcement and seeks economic equalization of representation in cases where p

2010The North Bay Regional Center contends that the language of section 1021.5 supports its view that nonpecuniary interests may disqualify a litigant from eligibility for attorney fees, echoing the argument made by the court in Hammond v. Agran (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 115 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 ] (Hammond): “Nothing in the text confines the consideration of the necessity and financial burden clause to just financial interests.

2010The North Bay Regional Center contends that the language of section 1021.5 supports its view that nonpecuniary interests may disqualify a litigant from eligibility for attorney fees, echoing the argument made by the court in Hammond v. Agran (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 115 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 ] (Hammond): “Nothing in the text confines the consideration of the necessity and financial burden clause to just financial interests.

2009(Save Open Space Santa Monica Mountains v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 235, 247 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 ].) The trial court’s application of the financial burden criterion involves a “realistic and practical comparison of the litigant’s personal interest with the cost of suit.” (FUTURE, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 515 .) The written briefing on the attorney fee request focused initially on whether Pala Band had a financial interest in seeking the writ of mandate.

2002(See generally Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 [“ ‘when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter” [citation]’ ”]; Planned Parenthood v. City of Santa Maria, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 691 [“No evidence was presented that the litigation . . . imposed a financial burden disproportionate to its individual stake”]; Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 , quoting Woodland Hills above; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El

2015(Zhang, supra, at p. 371, fn. 4 ; accord, Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ].) “[A]n award under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1021.5 requires a showing that (1) the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest; (2) it conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement (or enforcement by one public entity against another) *158 were such as to malee the award appropriate. [Citation.] Since the statute states the

2015(Zhang, supra, at p. 371, fn. 4 ; accord, Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ].) “[A]n award under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1021.5 requires a showing that (1) the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest; (2) it conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement (or enforcement by one public entity against another) *158 were such as to malee the award appropriate. [Citation.] Since the statute states the

2015(Zhang, supra, at p. 371, fn. 4 ; accord, Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ].) “[A]n award under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1021.5 requires a showing that (1) the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest; (2) it conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement (or enforcement by one public entity against another) *158 were such as to malee the award appropriate. [Citation.] Since the statute states the

2015(Zhang, supra, at p. 371, fn. 4 ; accord, Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1179 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 79 ].) “[A]n award under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1021.5 requires a showing that (1) the litigation enforced an important right affecting the public interest; (2) it conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement (or enforcement by one public entity against another) *158 were such as to malee the award appropriate. [Citation.] Since the statute states the

2014Our Supreme Court has explained this prong as follows: “In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citat

2014Our Supreme Court has explained this prong as follows: “In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citat

2014Our Supreme Court has explained this prong as follows: “In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citat

2012(Compare RiverWatch, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at pp. 776-777 [“Although cases refer to this requirement as the ‘financial burden’ criterion, nothing in the language of section 1021.5 ‘confines the consideration of the necessity and financial burden clause to just financial interests.’ [Citation.]”] with Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1122-1123 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 720 ] [“The fact [plaintiff] had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation is irrelevant. . . . ‘[Subdivision (b) of section 1021.5 focuses not on plaintiffs’ abstract personal stake, bu

2012(Compare RiverWatch, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at pp. 776-777 [“Although cases refer to this requirement as the ‘financial burden’ criterion, nothing in the language of section 1021.5 ‘confines the consideration of the necessity and financial burden clause to just financial interests.’ [Citation.]”] with Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1122-1123 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 720 ] [“The fact [plaintiff] had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation is irrelevant. . . . ‘[Subdivision (b) of section 1021.5 focuses not on plaintiffs’ abstract personal stake, bu

2011(Sharon S. v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 417, 422, fn. 2 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699 , 73 P.3d 554 ].) “As this court has elaborated with respect to th[e] third requirement (. . . sometimes referred to as the necessity and financial burden requirement): ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citation.]” ’ (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p.

2011(Sharon S. v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 417, 422, fn. 2 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699 , 73 P.3d 554 ].) “As this court has elaborated with respect to th[e] third requirement (. . . sometimes referred to as the necessity and financial burden requirement): ‘ “An award on the ‘private attorney general’ theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff ‘out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.’ [Citation.]” ’ (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p.

2010(See, e.g., Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 563, 573 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ].) The second prong of the inquiry addresses the “financial burden of private enforcement.” In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. “ ‘An award on the “private attorney general” theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, w

2010(See, e.g., Ciani v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 563, 573 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 ].) The second prong of the inquiry addresses the “financial burden of private enforcement.” In determining the financial burden on litigants, courts have quite logically focused not only on the costs of the litigation but also any offsetting financial benefits that the litigation yields or reasonably could have been expected to yield. “ ‘An award on the “private attorney general” theory is appropriate when the cost of the claimant’s legal victory transcends his personal interest, that is, w

2009(Punsly, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 113 , citing Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325, 329 [ 48 P. 117 ].) II THE COST OF LITIGATION WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO PALA BAND’S INDIVIDUAL STAKE IN THE MATTER DEH and GCL argue Pala Band failéd to show that “ ‘the cost of [its] legal victory transcended] [its] personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.” [Citation.]’ ” (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 .) Although cases refer to this requirement as the “financia

2009(Punsly, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 113 , citing Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325, 329 [ 48 P. 117 ].) II THE COST OF LITIGATION WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO PALA BAND’S INDIVIDUAL STAKE IN THE MATTER DEH and GCL argue Pala Band failéd to show that “ ‘the cost of [its] legal victory transcended] [its] personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.” [Citation.]’ ” (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 .) Although cases refer to this requirement as the “financia

2009(Punsly, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at p. 113 , citing Davey v. Southern Pacific Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 325, 329 [ 48 P. 117 ].) II THE COST OF LITIGATION WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO PALA BAND’S INDIVIDUAL STAKE IN THE MATTER DEH and GCL argue Pala Band failéd to show that “ ‘the cost of [its] legal victory transcended] [its] personal interest, that is, when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter.” [Citation.]’ ” (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 .) Although cases refer to this requirement as the “financia

2002The Text Permits Nonpecuniary Considerations Sometimes, when all else fails, one must actually read the statute. 4 (See Greenwood v. United States (1956) 350 U.S. 366, 374 [ 76 S.Ct. 410 , *125 414-415, 100 L.Ed. 412 ].) The operative language from section 1021.5 sets up as a requisite for a fee award “in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest” that the “necessity and financial burden of private enforcement ... are such as to make the award appropriate.” Nothing in the text confines the consideration of the necessity and financial b

2002The Text Permits Nonpecuniary Considerations Sometimes, when all else fails, one must actually read the statute. 4 (See Greenwood v. United States (1956) 350 U.S. 366, 374 [ 76 S.Ct. 410 , *125 414-415, 100 L.Ed. 412 ].) The operative language from section 1021.5 sets up as a requisite for a fee award “in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest” that the “necessity and financial burden of private enforcement ... are such as to make the award appropriate.” Nothing in the text confines the consideration of the necessity and financial b

2002(See generally Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 [“ ‘when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter” [citation]’ ”]; Planned Parenthood v. City of Santa Maria, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 691 [“No evidence was presented that the litigation . . . imposed a financial burden disproportionate to its individual stake”]; Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 , quoting Woodland Hills above; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El

2002(See generally Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 941 [“ ‘when the necessity for pursuing the lawsuit placed a burden on the plaintiff “out of proportion to his individual stake in the matter” [citation]’ ”]; Planned Parenthood v. City of Santa Maria, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 691 [“No evidence was presented that the litigation . . . imposed a financial burden disproportionate to its individual stake”]; Williams v. San Francisco Bd. of Permit Appeals, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 , quoting Woodland Hills above; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El