Private Attorney General: $166,027.05, Almost Fully Requested CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award, Affirmed On Appeal In Charter School Geographical Territory Dispute

Section 1021.5 Was Satisfied Based On Abuse Of Discretion Deferential Review Standard.

            CCP § 1021.5, California’s private attorney general statute, has several elements which must be satisfied.  On appeal from a fee award or fee denial, the issues present sometimes purely legal, mixed legal/factual issues, or purely factual issues for review purposes.  Which category governs frequently dictates how the appeal is decided, with the next opinion falling within the last category.

            In Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist., Case No. D073878 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 June 4, 2019) (unpublished), litigants squared off in a dispute involving geographical limitations under the Charter Schools Act, Education Code requirements, and SBE waivers.  In the end, plaintiff did not succeed on all of its claims, but did obtain declaratory relief and an injunction which prevented the other side from operating certain facilities in a specified geographical territory.  The trial court then awarded plaintiff fees of $166,027.05 (out of a requested $166,728.50) under section 1021.5. 

            That fee adjudication was affirmed on appeal by the 4/1 DCA.  It meticulously went through an analysis of the section 1021.5 elements, finding plaintiff met its burden for a fee award:

• • • Successful party – Sweetwater, although not prevailing on all claims, had partial success of a nature which justified a fee award based on the declaratory relief and injunction obtained;
    • Important right – In this area of changing educational needs, charter school geographical limitations and enforcement of these rights are important public policy issues;
    • Public interest – This dovetailed into the second element, but lawful operation of charter schools does involve a significant number of persons given how things are evolving in the educational arena;
    • Private enforcement necessity – Plaintiff, a private entity, had to bring this case because the adversaries were public entities who were not going to vindicate the interests involved; and
    • Financial burdens/incentives (Whitley analysis, see our Leading Case No. 14) – net revenue gain to the Plaintiff was trivial from any increased student enrollment compared to the fees incurred in the litigation, with Plaintiff doing a good job of presenting a competent costs/benefit analysis.