Successful Party And Significant Benefit Prongs Met, But Remanded To See If Financial Burden Element Met Under Section 1021.5.
The Third District in Friends of Spring Street v. Nevada City, Case No. C086563 (3d Dist. March 28, 2019) (unpublished) had found in an earlier appeal that petitioners had properly challenged real parties’ ability to operate a bed and breakfast in a residential area (in Kendall House in Nevada City), although not winning all claims under its mandate petition. In large degree, petitioners had vindicated a people’s voted local initiative, Measure G, which made B&Bs nonconforming uses in certain zoned areas, something accomplished in the earlier appeal. Later, petitioner requested routine costs and private attorney general attorney’s fees. The trial court denied both requests, which prompted petitioner’s appeal in Case No. C086563.
The Third District reversed and remanded to award routine costs and to determine if the financial burden of CCP § 1021.5 was met—and, if so, the amount of reasonable fee recovery was due to petitioner.
Petitioner did obtain its main litigation objective in relation to the B&B, such that it was entitled to prevailing party routine costs under CCP § 1032.
The appellate court also did buy the trial judge’s conclusions for denying fees, namely, petitioner was not successful and did not vindicate a right involving the general public. Petitioner was indeed successful with respect to the B&B issue. Given that zoning is an important right of a public interest, the vindication of Measure G—a people’s voted initiative—was even more important. However, the lower court did not consider the financial burden aspect of section 1021.5, so a remand was in order to analyze this element of fee entitlement.
Comments