Private Attorney General: 1/5 DCA Reverses And Remands Section 1021.5 Fee Award Of $265,783.90 To CEQA Plaintiff For Reconsideration After Legislature Passed Bill That Vacated Plaintiff’s Mandamus Petition Win

Plaintiff’s Hope For A Fees Award Now Depends On Prevailing Party Determination Under A “Catalyst Theory.”

            This next case includes an interesting discussion of fee recovery under a catalyst theory – a factual basis for fee recovery where a plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party by achieving its litigation objectives through the defendant’s voluntary change in conduct in response to the litigation itself as opposed to the final judgment.

            In Coast Action Group v. California State Board of Forestry etc., Case No. A157133 (1^st Dist., Div. 5 March 16, 2020) (unpublished), CEQA plaintiff filed a successful writ petition challenging the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s approval of regulations Plaintiff alleged violated the Forest Practice Act. 

            However, the trial court vacated judgment and peremptory writ of mandate upon previous remand after Legislature passed a bill that essentially invalidated the basis for the trial court’s previous order granting the writ.  Meanwhile, and despite passage of the bill, the trial court awarded Plaintiff $265,783.90 in Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 fees.

            On appeal, the 1/5 DCA agreed with Defendant – that Plaintiff was not a prevailing party in light of the final outcome of the litigation as it had failed to obtain judicially sanctioned relief.  But in an interesting twist, the 1/5 DCA reversed and remanded for redetermination to Plaintiff’s prevailing party status and fee entitlement under the catalyst theory.