In Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. A Free Pregnancy Center (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 633, a citizen's group filed suit against a pregnancy center, alleging fraudulent and illegal operations. The San Francisco district attorney subsequently filed a similar action, and the two cases were consolidated for trial. ( Id. at pp. 635-636.) After a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the citizen's committee sought its attorney fees under section 1021.5. The trial court denied the request, stating that the citizen's committee had failed to contact the district attorney before filing suit, and that the filing of suit by the district attorney made the citizen's committee action unnecessary. ( Id. at p. 640.) The appellate court disagreed, holding that the action was not unnecessary merely because the district attorney subsequently filed a similar action. It also found that the citizen's committee was not required to contact the district attorney's office before filing suit. Specifically, the court found that "an attorney fee award is dependent upon an ultimate finding of the trial court that the colitigating private party rendered necessary and significant services of value to the public or to a large class of persons benefited by the result of the litigation. Important factors the trial court should address in determining if the services of the private party were necessary, so as to support that ultimate finding, are these: (1) Did the private party advance significant factual or legal theories adopted by the court, thereby providing a material non de minimis contribution to its judgment, which were nonduplicative of those advanced by the governmental entity? (2) Did the private party produce substantial evidence significantly contributing to the court's judgment which was not produced by the governmental entity, and which was neither duplicative of nor merely cumulative to the evidence produced by the governmental entity?" ( Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. A Free Pregnancy Center, supra, 229 Cal. App. 3d 633, 642-643, ) The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the issue. Accordingly, it only decided that the trial court erred in denying the request for attorney fees solely on the grounds that the citizen's committee failed to notify the district attorney of the filing of the case, and that the Attorney General also filed an action.