Appealability/Private Attorney General: Denial Of Private Attorney General Fee Recovery For Traffic Infraction Partial Win Was Proper Because Appeal Did Not Affect Winner’s Substantial Rights

 

Traffic Infraction Winners May Face Hard Road to Hoe As Far As Fee Recovery.

    In Gray v. Superior Court, Case No. B269150 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2016) (published), a person failing to stop at a red light partially won an automated camera traffic enforcement challenge, with the person filing to recovery attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute because he vindicated public interests in a criminal case under Penal Code section 1466(b)(2).  The trial court denied the fee request, which prompted an appeal to the Appellate Division.   The Appellate Division concluded the fees did not implicate criminal defendant’s substantial rights such that the court’s order denying fees was not appealable or subject to writ relief.

    Defendant did not win before the “second” appellate court (2/3 DCA).  Because the denial of a fee request only involved personal property, the appellate court agreed that no substantial rights were at issue under section 1466(b)(2).  Ultimately, the Appellate District did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award 1021.5 fees under the circumstances.