Plaintiff’s Action Did Not Result In A Significant Benefit To The General Public.
Code Civ. Proc. section 1021.5 does not guarantee fee entitlement to a successful party in an action resulting in the enforcement of an important right affecting public interest. Rather, section 1021.5 includes a three-prong prerequisite for an attorney fee award: (a) the action has resulted in a significant benefit to the general public or a large class of persons; (b) the necessity and financial burden of the private enforcement are such so as to make the fee award appropriate; and (c) such fees should not be paid out of the recovery, if any. As such, a trial court adjudicating a section 1021.5 fees motion must determine the significance of the benefit the successful party has achieved and the size of the class receiving the benefit.
In Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B295988 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 10, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared and certified by the City of Los Angeles in connection with the development of a 34-story residential building. Plaintiff’s action resulted in very limited success – with the trial court decertifying the portion of the EIR associated with the project’s energy impact, and ordering City to prepare and recertify a revised energy impact analysis due to a calculation error.
Plaintiff then moved, as the successful party, for $545,850 in section 1021.5 fees – later increasing the request to $613,525 due to time spent responding to discovery related to the fee motion – which included a 2.0 multiplier on merits-based work and a 1.5 multiplier on the fee motion on the $500 per hour rate. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion, concluding that although plaintiff’s action resulted in the correction of a calculation error in the EIR, it did not in any respect change the project’s environmental impact.
On appeal, the 2/3 DCA affirmed – finding no abuse of discretion given plaintiff’s action did not result in a significant benefit to the general public.
Comments