That Means That Petitioner’s Motion To Recover Fees Of $22 Million Under A One-Way Fee Shifting Statute Went Bye-Bye.
Petitioner’s neighborhood association and a resident, in Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, Case No. B295935 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 9, 2020) (published), had successfully sued Santa Monica when a lower court ruled that the city’s at-large voting system to elect city council members discriminated against Latinos both under the California Voting Rights Act (CVA) and California Constitution. In fact, the lower court ordered city to switch to a district-based voting system. CVA, in Elections Code section 14030, has a one-way fee-shifting statute in favor only of prevailing plaintiffs, while routine costs are awardable to prevailing plaintiffs and to prevailing defendants, but to defendants only where the matter is deemed frivolous or the like. After their win, Petitioner had a pending request for attorney’s fees and cost of about $22 million against City.
Well, fee/cost exposure—for now—is no more worry for the City. The 2/8 DCA reversed the lower court judgment as a matter of law and awarded costs to City. Total reversal of fortune.
Comments