Private Attorney General: Appellate Court’s Reversal Of Grant Of Peremptory Writ Of Mandate Discharge Directives Also Gave Rise To Reversal Of Denial Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees.

Also, Trial Judge Applied An Inapt Catalyst Theory To The Plaintiff’s 1021.5 Fee Request.

            In Community Venture Partners v. Marin County Open Space Dist., Case Nos. A161851/A162374 (1^st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 28, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed the granting of District’s motion to discharge a peremptory writ of mandate in a land use case and the denying of plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5.  It found that the lower court misconstrued what was needed to discharge the writ, so that the fee denial request had to be revisited.  The lower court determined that plaintiff was not the successful party, but the appellate court tried to head off future error by reminding the lower court that a catalyst theory was not in play—so that success on any significant issue with benefit was the correct legal standard for review even though not indicating how the trial judge should rule on remand.