Public Hearings Remand Was a Limited One, At Best; Attorney/Paralegal Work Stricken From Cost Award In County’s Favor.
A nonprofit organization out to save blue oak woodlands from the consequences of a development appealed a denial of a requested fee recovery under CCP § 1021.5 after they won a limited public hearings remand under CEQA to reconsider the financial feasibility of a greater fee to mitigate traffic impacts on Interstate Highway I-5. It also appealed a costs award of $25,565 in favor of Tehama County as prevailing party.
Blue oaks. Flickr creative commons license. Miguel Vieira, photographer.
The appeal did not overturn the fee award, but a substantial portion of the costs award was ordered to be subtracted in California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama, Case No. C066415 (3d Dist. May 25, 2012) (unpublished).
The problem was that nonprofit lost the blue oak woodlands issue and five of the six remaining mitigation issues. The financial feasibility remand issue resulted in sparsely-attended public hearings and the County arrived at the same position it reached previously with respect to the project. Under these circumstances, no “significant benefit” was achieved for section 1021.5 purposes such that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the fee request.
The County’s cost award was another matter altogether. $15,771.25 of the costs award comprised a JD/prospective attorney’s work in summarizing a PowerPoint presentation for trial which, at a $185 hourly rate, could only be characterized as attorney/paralegal fees not recoverable as costs. (Science Applications Internat. Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1104 (1995); Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(10).) This amount was subtracted, with the remaining judgment affirmed by the appellate court.
Comments