POOF!/Private Attorney General/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Reversal Of Federal Due Process Violations Count Required Remand Redetermination Of Fee Awards To Prevailing Parties In Reverse Validation Action

 

Fee Entitlement Was Established Under Public Records Act and Private Attorney General Statute, But Reversal of Civil Rights Judgment Determination Required a “Relook” All Around.

     Although quite a lengthy decision, Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, Case Nos. D060001/D061141 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 30, 2013) (published) does show that reversal of even one claim may require a “re-do” of an attorney’s fees award based on various entitlement anchors upon overturning of a fee award based on one particular entitlement anchor.

     Petitioners (a main one and interested parties) won challenges to a redevelopment plan amendment in a reverse validation action, including determinations there were federal due process (civil rights) violations and violations under California’s Public Records Act. The trial court then ordered City to pay substantial attorney’s fees of over $1.9 million to the main petitioner and another $84,652.50 to other interested parties based upon three fee entitlements--the Public Records Act, the private attorney general statute, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (the civil rights fee-shifting provision).

     Those fee determinations had to be reevaluated/refixed upon reversal of the federal due process violations upon remand from this appeal cause.

     Initially, the appellate court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the fee motions to be heard despite an untimely filing based on confusion of events below. CCP § 473 and CRC 3.1702(d) clearly allowed for such a ruling.

     Main petitioner did obtain relief properly as a prevailing party under the Public Record Act’s fee-shifting provision, with City’s claim that it was immune not being well taken despite the fact the PRA violations were found in a lawsuit rather than upon a verified separate petition. Interested parties certainly looked like they were successful under the private attorney general statute. However, the reversal of the federal civil rights claim required a general “do-over” given that it was unclear what entitlement anchors were used and how the overturning of the civil rights claim impacted things--apportionment might or might not be in order.