The Trial Judge’s Call On Which Side Achieved Its Litigation Objection Was Correct.
On June 24, 2020, we posted on Redondo Beach Waterfront, LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, Case Nos. B291111/BS168564 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 19, 2020), unpublished at the time. We can now report that it was partially published on July 9, 2020, though the fee discussion portion remains unpublished. You can read the partially published opinion here.
In the published portion of the opinion, the 2/3 DCA agreed with a trial court ruling that a developer obtained vested rights, based on a vesting tentative tract map, for a Redondo Beach waterfront development before passage of a restrictive city development measure. During the course of the matter, a residential interest group were allowed to intervene based on its belief the City could not adequately represent the city development measure’s proponents. Intervenor moved for costs and private attorney general fees, but the lower court found that it was not a successful party—the first element necessary for CCP § 1021.5 fee recovery.
The appellate court affirmed in an unpublished portion of its opinion. The problem was that the developer did achieve its litigation goals, while the Intervenor seeking to halt the project did not. The successful party analysis is pragmatically based, and Intervenor lost its attempt to stifle the project. Intervenor’s partial success on some ancillary claims did not alter the conclusion.
Comments