Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Citation: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Parent Document: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810131/morrison-v-vineyard-creek-lp/ ↗

Full Text

973 chars

We, like the trial court, disagree with at least some of these assertions. The settlement had no precedential value. It did not result in legal findings or even acknowledgement of liability or any statutory violation. Nor did it resolve anything as to anybody other than Morrison (or, at most, with respect to rental properties owned by Vineyard Creek). In denying attorney fees under a private attorney general theory (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5), the court concluded that “the evidence in support of this case’s conferring a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons appears to be totally speculative” and “ ‘[t]o suggest that [Morrison’s] attorneys have educated the masses, touted their victory, even shouted their message from the *1263mountaintops, does not establish that a large class of people benefited from their shouting.’ ” Morrison does not challenge the court’s denial of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text