Private Enforcement Necessity Prong Does Not Require Causation, With The Litigation Vindicating Important Affordable Housing Rights For A Large Class Of People.
Plaintiffs sued the City of Desert Hot Springs and related parties to force a long overdue obligation to revise the housing element of the city’s general plan. The city had missed numerous deadlines in the past relating to a housing plan, stalled further during prelitigation negotiations with plaintiffs, and only later entered into a stipulated judgment to adhere to certain housing plan guidelines after a suit was filed. Plaintiffs then moved to recover $328,255 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5, California’s private attorney general statute. The trial judge’s tentative was to award a reduced amount of $121,485 in fees, but he then pivoted to award nothing. He reasoned plaintiffs did not cause the city to eventually agree to the deadline, because it was in the process of doing so—meaning that private enforcement necessity was not shown.
The 4/2 DCA reversed and remanded for the trial judge to determine the amount of fees to be awarded to plaintiffs in Garcia v. City of Desert Hot Springs, Case No. E075523 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 16, 2022) (unpublished). Legally, causation is irrelevant on the private enforcement necessity prong of section 1021.5, just that public enforcement is not sufficiently available as was shown by city’s conduct along the way. (City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1298 (1989).) Beyond that, plaintiffs did vindicate an important affordable housing public issue impacting a large class of people. Finally, because plaintiffs did achieve their litigation objectives, the appellate court determined that the lower court erred by not awarding $94 in routine costs to plaintiffs.
Comments