The California Supreme Court, in Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 311 193 Cal. Rptr. 900, 667 P.2d 704, stated in a footnote, "as the statute makes clear, subdivision (b) of section 1021.5 i.e., the financial burden criterion focuses not on a plaintiff's abstract personal stake, but on the financial incentives and burdens related to bringing suit. Indeed, in the absence of some concrete personal interest in the issue being litigated, the putative plaintiff would lack standing to bring an action." (Id. at p. 321, fn. 11.) Many courts, including this one, have reiterated this statement. (Blythe, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1667, quoting Press; see also Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1, 30 267 Cal. Rptr. 618; Phipps v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist. (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 1122-1123 251 Cal. Rptr. 720; Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 213, 229, fn. 13 226 Cal. Rptr. 265; California Common Cause v. Duffy (1987) 200 Cal. App. 3d 730, 751 246 Cal. Rptr. 285; Beach Colony II v. California Coastal Com. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d 106, 114-115 212 Cal. Rptr. 485.)