Private Attorney General: Although Project Proponent Ultimately Succeeding In Reversing A Project Mandamus Blocking Judgment Is Entitled To 1021.5 Fee Recovery, It Is Not Authorized Against A Litigant Who Did Not Impair Or Compromise Public Rights

 

In Fact, First Win Was One To Enforce Environmental Laws.

    Botanical Building in Balboa Park.  May 2013.  Carol M. Highsmith, photographer.  Library of Congress.

    In Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) v. City of San Diego, Case No. D070006 (4th Dist., Div. 1 April 27, 2017) (published), a certain Committee, proponent of a project to revitalize Balboa Park in San Diego, obtained reversal of a prior mandamus judgment in favor of SOHO and against the City of San Diego by which the project was rescinded. Environmental and other legal concerns inspired SOHO’s opposition. After reversal, Committee sought an attorney’s fees award under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, a request denied by the trial court. The denial was affirmed on appeal. Although finding the Committee as a project proponent was not disqualified from fee entitlement recovery under § 1021.5, the appellate court determined that SOHO should not be the victim of a 1021.5 fee award because it did not act to compromise public rights. In fact, it sought to enforce legal and environmental concerns, albeit ultimately unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal obviously was concerned with chilling rights for litigants in the position of SOHO.