Private Attorney General: Intervener Media Organizations In Reverse-PRA Action Were Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees Because Trial Court Improperly Conditioned Their Intervention On Striking Their Requests For Fee Recovery

This Condition For Intervention By Intervenors Of Right Was Unreasonable In Nature.

            It now seems established that attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5, are available to intervening parties in a reverse-Public Records Act (PRA) case.  (Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 22 Cal.App.5^th 147, 159 (2018) [discussed in our April 15, 2018 post]; City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 42 Cal.App.5^th 290, 306 (2019) [discussed in our December 1, 2019 post].) 

            However, in Carlsbad Police Officers Association v. City of Carlsbad, Case No. D075723 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 May 18, 2020) (published), the 4/1 DCA faced an issue of first impression for intervenors with respect to a trial court condition granting their intervention motion.  But first we describe the procedural context for the issue being decided by the appellate court.

            Eight police officer associations filed a “reverse-PRA action” to prevent disclosure of certain police misconduct/use of force records under Senate Bill No 1421.  Several media organizations moved to intervene, a request granted by the trial court but with an unusual condition to the ability to intervene:  interveners would have to strike their requests to attorney’s fees under section 1021.5.  Later, the lower court agreed with the merits of interveners’ argument as to why police records had to be disclosed.

            The appellate court reversed the intervention “fee striking” condition order.  Media organizations were interveners as of right, which means that any conditions on intervention had to be narrowly circumscribed.  The 4/1 DCA did not view the fee striking condition as even a close call, because it thwarted the interveners’ rights to vindicate public interests.  The matter was remanded, but the media interveners’ right to appellate expenses was only allowed with respect to costs and fees relating to the appeal against the police associations, not certain cities or their police chiefs. 

            BLOG OBSERVATION—This decision does have a scholarly discussion about conditions which can be granted in connection with an intervention request.