Determination Based On Achieving Litigation Goal, Not On Prevailing On A Higher Percentage Of Issues.
Redondo Beach Waterfront v. City of Redondo Beach, Case No. B291111 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020) (unpublished), involved renovation of an existing 150,000 square foot building and a new 400,000 square foot waterfront development in the City of Redondo Beach. The project was authorized through Measure G – approved by City residents in 2010 – which amended the City’s local coastal program to permit waterfront development. Developer began working with the City on the project in 2010 and City deemed Developer’s Vesting Tentative Tract Map complete in June 2016. In early 2017, City residents approved Measure C to stop waterfront development.
Developer filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against City – asserting Measure C was invalid and/or unconstitutional on various grounds, and could not be applied retroactively to the project. Fearing City would not represent proponents of Measure C, City residents successfully filed to intervene.
The trial court ruled against Developer’s claims that Measure C was invalid and/or unconstitutional, but – pursuant to Government Code § 66498.1 and the text of Measure C – ruled in Developer’s favor as to the ability of City to retroactively apply Measure C to the project. Developer’s rights had vested against the City as a matter of law because City had approved Developer’s vesting tentative map prior to Measure C’s passing. Developer dismissed his remaining causes of action, and City residents then moved for costs and filed an ex parte application regarding their intent to seek attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. Based on existing appeals on the case at the time, the trial court requested briefing on and ruled as to successful and prevailing party status – to determine which party would be entitled to seek costs and fees. The trial court determined Developer was the successful party as it had achieved its litigation objective to proceed with the project without being forced to comply with Measure C, while City residents failed to achieve their objective to stop the project from moving forward.
City residents appealed – arguing they were the successful party because they had prevailed on two out of three issues. The 2/3 DCA found no abuse of discretion. The panel agreed with the trial court’s finding that City residents had failed to achieve their litigation goals and therefore could not show they were the “successful party” as required for an award of attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5.
Comments