Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $71,075.075 Grant Of Attorney’s Fees To California Public Records Act Petitioner Reversed Because Minimal/Insignificant Results In Document Disclosure May Allow For Denial Of Fees Altogether

Minimal/Insignificant Standard Is Applicable to CPRA Fees, Even Though the Statute Has Mandatory Prevailing Party Fee Language.

            Riskin v. Downtown L.A. Property Owners Assn., Case No. B309814 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 17, 2022) (published) dealt with a situation where a petitioner under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) obtained a $71,075.75 attorney’s fees award based on mandatory prevailing party fee language, even though petitioner only obtained one document.  The opposing party had argued that the “success” was minimal or insignificant such that the trial judge had discretion to deny fees altogether. The lower court felt constrained by the mandatory language in awarding what it did.

            The 2/3 DCA reversed, in an opinion authored by Orange County Superior Court Judge Kimberly A. Knill, sitting by designation as an appellate justice.  The panel determined that a minimal/insignificant standard did exist under CPRA, in line with “dicta” in Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 88 Cal.App.4^th1381, 1391-1392 (2001) and with other appellate cases not denouncing that standard.  So, where a requestor only obtains partial relief under the CPRA, the minimal or insignificant standard applies so as to allow fee denial altogether if the circumstances show this should be the fair result.