Second District, Division 6 Reverses Small Fee Award to Catalyst 1021.5 Winners.
In an interesting decision arising out of a private owner-church dispute, the Second District, Division 6 again shows us that they are very attuned to fee award issues under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute).
Not surprisingly, Edna Valley Watch v. County of San Luis Obispo, Case No. B223653 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 2, 2011) (certified for publication) involved an adjacent property owner and nonprofit organization’s fight in successfully blocking a church project in the Edna Valley area of San Luis Obispo for potential CEQA violations, after losing administrative proceedings but prevailing on a writ petition that the lower court found was a catalyst to blocking the project. Owner sought $4,600 in fees, and nonprofit sought $30,424.40 in fees based on prevailing under section 1021.5. The lower court only granted nonprofit about $3,500 in fees, prompting an appeal by the owner and nonprofit.
They did some vindication on appeal.
Presiding Justice Gilbert, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, decided that work on administrative proceedings can be subject to fee compensation under section 1021.5, especially because the administrative proceeding in this one was a predicate to obtaining eventual CEQA determinations. Also, the appellate court parted company with a restrictive definition of “action” adopted in Best v. California Apprenticeship Council, 193 Cal.App.3d 1448 (1987), finding that an administrative proceeding can qualify for 1021.5 fee reimbursement. A remand was required to reconsider both owner/nonprofit’s requests given that the lower court denied administrative proceeding fees as a matter of law.
That brought the appellate court to the lower court’s ruling that owner was disqualified from a fee award because of his personal stake in the matter. Not so, in light of the financial benefit/burden test adopted in Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010), where nonpecuniary personal stakes cannot be weighed at all and courts must adopt a “market” approach--with the latter meaning that a bounty is appropriate where the monetary award exceeds by a substantial margin the litigation costs expended by the prevailing party.
Comments