Deadlines: Prevailing Parties In Mandate Proceeding Untimely Filed Their Motion For Attorney’s Fees

Order Granting Writ Petition Was A Final Judgment, Not Impacted By A Future Writ Return.

            Union members successfully obtained a writ of mandate order by which the lower court directed vacating a Union board election in Wallace v. Alameda County Management Employees Assn., Case No. A162044 (1^st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 25, 2022) (unpublished).  Respondents filed a return to the writ, stating a new election had been held in compliance with the court’s order.  More than 180 days after the order granting the writ, prevailing parties moved for CCP § 1021.5 attorney’s fees, boldly declaring that they had achieved complete success and full remedy in the action.  The lower court denied the fee request as being untimely.

            The 1/5 DCA affirmed.  The writ grant order was a final judgment for appeal purposes, even if not accompanied by a separate final judgment.  (Public Defenders’ Organization v. County of Riverside, 106 Cal.App.4^th 1403, 1409 (2003).)  Additional proceedings, such as a return on the writ, did not change the finality of the writ order.  (Los Angeles Internat. Charter High School v. L.A. Unified School Dist., 209 Cal.App.4^th 1348, 1354-1355 (2012).)  With respect to the argument that this was just an “interim” fee request, that was dispatched by prevailing parties’ pronouncement in their fee motion that they had achieved complete success in the matter.