City’s Challenges For Reversal Were Unsuccessful Under Abuse Of Discretion Review.
In City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. & Friends. Case No. G075834 (5th Dist. April 4, 2019) (unpublished), West Park did achieve partial success in having the lower court find that the use of tax revenues to fund certain road improvement projects was unconstitutional in nature. The lower court later awarded West Park its full CCP § 1021.5 attorney’s fees request, a $98,867.50 lodestar and a 1.5 positive multiplier, for a total of $163,136 in fees. (The evidence in the fee proceeding showed West Park had a receivable of $56,049.37 owed to its attorneys.)
City’s appeal did not change things.
West Park was indeed successful on a significant issue, resulting in a published decision on the tax revenue use issue. Partial success is enough in the CCP § 1021.5 area.
With respect to the financial burden element of section 1021.5, no monetary relief would ever go back to the individuals of the respondent entity, everyone knew the probability of stopping the project entirely was low in nature, and the gain to the individuals was slight from even a delay in the project perspective. That was enough to justify the fee award.
With respect to the 1.5 positive multiplier, the prevailing party did have a receivable owed to the attorneys representing it, plus—it was a difficult case, meaning the positive enhancement was no abuse of discretion. The “fee award will fall on the taxpayer” factor was a legitimate concern, but the lower court’s rejection of it was similarly no error under the circumstances.
Comments