Casas v. City of Baldwin Park
This appeal is an outgrowth of the same proceedings that resulted in our recent decision in Casas v. City of Baldwin Park, et al. (Mar. 28, 2017, B270313) [nonpub. opn.] (Casas I).[1] As noted in that opinion, the trial court awarded Paul Cook, counsel for plaintiff Julian Casas, nearly $40,000 in attorney fees for work that led to the issuance of a writ of mandate compelling the City of Baldwin Park (the City) to produce records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). We now consider Casas’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to award additional attorney fees for work Cook performed in filing motions and an ex parte application to compel compliance with the writ the court issued.
Comments on Casas v. City of Baldwin Park