§Why CasetextPricing

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)

Real Parties in Interest, ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven, Petition for Review

78 Cited authorities

  1. Ketchum v. Moses

    24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,730 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the party seeking a fee enhancement bears the burden of proof

  2. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler

    22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,213 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding no error in awarding "prevailing market rate for comparable legal services in San Francisco, where counsel is located" in a case heard in Los Angeles

  3. Maria P. v. Riles

    43 Cal.3d 1281 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 1,196 times
    Determining plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties under § 1021.5 on the basis of their preliminary injunction against defendants

  4. ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson

    93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 637 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"

  5. McCown v. City of Fontana

    565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 412 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a comparison of damages awarded to damages sought" is relevant to a determination of the reasonable fee award

  6. People v. Gionis

    9 Cal.4th 1196 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 553 times
    Holding defendant's incriminating remarks to counsel, from whom he sought but did not receive advice, not protected by attorney-client privilege; noting attorney's "unequivocal refusal to represent defendant . . . detracts significantly from defendant's claim of privilege"

  7. Serrano v. Priest

    20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 938 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denying benefits of the private attorney general rule to funded public-interest attorneys would be essentially inconsistent with the rule itself

  8. Costco v. Superior Ct.

    47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 303 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege "does not extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter has been communicated to the attorney"

  9. DiBella v. Hopkins

    403 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 229 times
    Holding that, when hearing a New York state-law claim "under our diversity jurisdiction, we are obligated to apply New York's standard of proof"

  10. Serrano v. Unruh

    32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 399 times
    Holding that "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust," "parties who qualify for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent, including those on fee-related matters."

  11. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,812 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

  12. Section 952 - "Confidential communication between client and lawyer"

    Cal. Evid. Code § 952   Cited 376 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Defining "confidential communication between client and lawyer" as "information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted"

  13. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. I § 3   Cited 296 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Creating constitutional right of access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes limiting such access

  14. Section 6149 - Written fee contract deemed confidential communication

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6149   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A written fee contract shall be deemed to be a confidential communication within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6068 and of Section 952 of the Evidence Code. Ca. Bus. and Prof'l. Code § 6149 Added by Stats. 1986, Ch. 475, Sec. 8.

  15. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer