financial burden analysis in California

2018As stated above, the AFL court was responding negatively to the contention that two large union plaintiffs-the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America-were "well able to meet the costs" of the action and thus an award of fees was improper. ( AFL , supra , 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 822 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 193 .) And the Citizens court was rejecting the claim that the prevailing parties' receipt of voluntary financial contributions to the ongoing litigation from nonparties-which *706 arguably gave them the ability to absorb litigation costs-should be considered in a financial burden analysis. ( Citizen

2018As stated above, the AFL court was responding negatively to the contention that two large union plaintiffs-the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America-were "well able to meet the costs" of the action and thus an award of fees was improper. ( AFL , supra , 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 822 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 193 .) And the Citizens court was rejecting the claim that the prevailing parties' receipt of voluntary financial contributions to the ongoing litigation from nonparties-which *706 arguably gave them the ability to absorb litigation costs-should be considered in a financial burden analysis. ( Citizen

2018As stated above, the AFL court was responding negatively to the contention that two large union plaintiffs-the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America-were "well able to meet the costs" of the action and thus an award of fees was improper. ( AFL , supra , 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 822 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 193 .) And the Citizens court was rejecting the claim that the prevailing parties' receipt of voluntary financial contributions to the ongoing litigation from nonparties-which *706 arguably gave them the ability to absorb litigation costs-should be considered in a financial burden analysis. ( Citizen

2018As stated above, the AFL court was responding negatively to the contention that two large union plaintiffs-the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America-were "well able to meet the costs" of the action and thus an award of fees was improper. ( AFL , supra , 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 822 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 193 .) And the Citizens court was rejecting the claim that the prevailing parties' receipt of voluntary financial contributions to the ongoing litigation from nonparties-which *706 arguably gave them the ability to absorb litigation costs-should be considered in a financial burden analysis. ( Citizen

2018We cannot conclude based on the present record that the court's finding that Mejia's personal interest did not outweigh the financial burden of private enforcement was manifestly unreasonable." ( Id. at p. 159, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 , italics added.) Again, a successful plaintiff's financial hardship was deemed an appropriate consideration under a financial burden analysis.

2018Similarly, in Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 151 , the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5.

2025(Bui v. Nguyen (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366 [in litigation “against the only agency that would bear the responsibility of complying with the . . . statutory right being asserted, necessity of private enforcement is manifest”].) 23 As for financial burden, an award of fees under section 1021.5, subdivision (b), 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.” ’ ” (Woodland Hills, supra, 23 Cal.3d at

2023(See Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1043-1044, 1047 [holding that the “trial court abused its discretion in awarding Ryan attorney fees under section 1021.5, because he failed meet his burden of showing that … [the costs of his lawsuit] disproportionately transcended his personal [financial] interest in the matter”].) The financial burden requirement examines “ ‘ “whether the financial burden of private enforcement warrants subsidizing the successful party’s attorneys.” ’ ” (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1214 (Whitley).) “In det

2023(City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 688 , 704–708.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the financial burden requirement was met.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2016Such a holding is inconsistent with more recent authorities, which, as discussed above, consider a party's financial incentives to participate in litigation-that is, the potential financial benefits, broadly defined-regardless of the actual recovery, if any, from the litigation. ( Davis , supra , 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 1330 , 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 [relevant issue is the estimated value of the case when litigation decisions made]; Fresno , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 62 , 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 [the relevant issue is the financial incentives for bringing the lawsuit]; Norberg , supra , 221 Cal.App.

2013In Olson, our Supreme Court concluded that "neither the language nor the legislative history of section 1021.5 demonstrates that the statute permits an award of expert witness fees." (Olson, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1148 .) As Olson explained, in the case of section 1021.5, the statutory language clearly limits the award to attorney fees, as it states that " '[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a 9 We need not, and do not, decide whether the proper measure of the actual litigation costs in this case, for the purposes of the financial burden analysis is the amount of $141,303.37

1979Co. v. Blackhawk Htng. & Plmb., supra, 423 F.Supp. 486 .)’ [Jjudicial scrutiny [is required] to prevent literalism from possibly overcoming substantial justice to the parties.’” (Comden v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 906, 915 .) Petitioners assert: no testimony of Mr. Bragg will violate a confidential relationship to any of the parties; he is familiar with the facts of the underlying action; his disassociation from it would work a hardship and require employment of new counsel they can ill afford; and finally, they argue RPIs’ motion is a ploy to increase the financial burden of defense a

1979Co. v. Blackhawk Htng. & Plmb., supra, 423 F.Supp. 486 .)’ [Jjudicial scrutiny [is required] to prevent literalism from possibly overcoming substantial justice to the parties.’” (Comden v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 906, 915 .) Petitioners assert: no testimony of Mr. Bragg will violate a confidential relationship to any of the parties; he is familiar with the facts of the underlying action; his disassociation from it would work a hardship and require employment of new counsel they can ill afford; and finally, they argue RPIs’ motion is a ploy to increase the financial burden of defense a

1979Co. v. Blackhawk Htng. & Plmb., supra, 423 F.Supp. 486 .)’ [Jjudicial scrutiny [is required] to prevent literalism from possibly overcoming substantial justice to the parties.’” (Comden v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 906, 915 .) Petitioners assert: no testimony of Mr. Bragg will violate a confidential relationship to any of the parties; he is familiar with the facts of the underlying action; his disassociation from it would work a hardship and require employment of new counsel they can ill afford; and finally, they argue RPIs’ motion is a ploy to increase the financial burden of defense a