The Significant Public Benefits Achieved In This Case Were Very High – Impacting Over 7,500 Water District Customers Facing An Unconstitutional Rate Increase Of Approximately 200%.
In KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water District, Case No. C088824 (3rd Dist., May 28, 2021) (published; fee discussion unpublished), plaintiffs succeeded in their petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief – claiming Water District had violated Proposition 218 (approved by California voters in 1996 to restrict the ability of state and local governments to impose taxes and fees) with its December 2016 water rate increase. Plaintiffs then moved postjudgment for, and were awarded, $66,345.50 in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 attorney fees. Defendants appealed both the judgment and postjudgment fees order, and the Third District affirmed.
As to the fees, the panel disagreed with each of defendants’ arguments, and found plaintiffs met their required showing under § 1021.5 and were entitled to fees. Plaintiffs’ action vindicated an important public right and conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons as over 7,500 Water District customers, facing an unconstitutional rate increase of approximately 200%, benefited directly from plaintiff’s action. Because the significant public benefits achieved were very high, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court awarding fees where plaintiffs’ personal benefit outweighed the litigation costs. (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 188 Cal. App.3d 1, 10 (1986).)
Finally, defendants argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce plaintiffs’ fees for redactions, block-billing, and because plaintiffs did not prevail on every legal theory they advanced. Again, the Third District found no abuse of discretion – disregarding defendants’ conclusory arguments not supported by reasoning. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 (2019).)
Comments