Trial Court Focused On The “Punishment” The Fees Award Would Impose On Defendant For Unsuccessful Appeal Of Judgment Rather Than Examining Determination Factors For Award Under § 1021.5 And Also Erred In Denying Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Apportion Fees Between His Private Interests And The Public Interest.
In Doe v. Westmont College, Case No. B303208 (2d Dist., Div. 6 January 25, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff challenged the defendant college’s determination that he committed sexual assault in a petition for writ of administrative mandate – arguing that Westmont did not give him a fair hearing and that substantial evidence did not support its decision. The trial court granted plaintiff’s petition, but denied his motion for $58,466 in fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. Plaintiff did not appeal the fees denial, but defendant unsuccessfully appealed the judgment. After the 2/6 DCA affirmed in a published opinion, plaintiff sought to recover $85,652, under § 1021.5, for fees incurred on appeal. The trial court denied – finding the published opinion’s significant benefit conferred on a large group of people arose from defendant’s decision to appeal, not plaintiff’s, and that a fee award to plaintiff would “punish [defendant] for appealing rather than vindicate the purposes behind . . . section 1021.5.” The trial court also denied on the basis that plaintiff provided no apportionment between fees that pertained solely to plaintiff’s private interests and those that advanced the public interest.
On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it denied his postappeal motion for attorney fees because: (1) his action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, (2) his action conferred significant benefits on a large group of people, and (3) the necessity and burden of private enforcement made a fee award appropriate. The panel agreed with plaintiff’s first two contentions, and concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion by failing to examine two factors in making its determination re § 1021.5 fees – whether private enforcement was necessary, and whether the financial burden of private enforcement warranted a fees award. Instead the trial court focused on the “punishment” defendant would suffer for exercising its right to appeal – thereby applying the wrong standard in determining the merits of plaintiff’s motion for fees.
Additionally, the panel found that plaintiff’s failure to apportion fees between those that advanced his private interests and those that advanced the public interest was not an appropriate basis for denial – with the award of attorney fees being an obligation if the party seeking fees has met the criteria for the award, and the trial court having the broad discretion to apportion such fees if the seeking party is not able to do so.
BLOG UPDATE: We can now report that Doe v. Westmont College was certified for publication on February 8, 2021.
Comments