adopt sensible limitations to prevent extortionate litigation because judges are expected and instructed to exercise discretion to determine that the lawsuit achieved its result “by threat of victory” and not “by dint of nuisance and threat of expense.” Id. at 575, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 331, 101 P.3d 140 (citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 628, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). The Graham court justified a requirement that a private attorney general plaintiff seeking fees first reasonably and unambiguously attempt to settle short of litigation: We believe this requirement is fully consistent with the basic objectives behind section 1021.5 and with one of i 960, 966, 213 Cal.Rptr. 108 (Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 6. Rule of Proportionality Supports Warning
holding that to recover private attorney general fees a plaintiff must reasonably attempt to settle before litigation holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal recognizing a partys right to receive postjudgment fees for collection when the original judgment awarded that party attorney fees holding that attorney fees must be awarded where plaintiffs section 1983 claim was unreasonable and groundless holding private attorney general fees will not be awarded unless the plaintiff first attempts to resolve the matter without litigation and attendant expense