Plaintiff Failed To Meet Its Burden Of Proving Prevailing Party Status, Especially In Light Of Defendant’s Evidence That The Relief Plaintiff Sought Was Already Being Implemented Before Plaintiff Filed Its Action.
Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, plaintiff dismissed its action, regarding an unlawful stream obstruction that impaired fish passage, against defendant two months into litigation. Afterward, plaintiff moved for almost $130,000 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.) The trial court denied the motion – finding that defendant was already in the process of implementing the relief plaintiff sought at the time plaintiff filed its action. Plaintiff appealed in Water Audit Cal. v. Nevada Irrigation Dist., Case No. C092877 (3d Dist., May 12, 2022) (unpublished), arguing that the trial court erred in concluding it was not a successful party because the stipulation was “a formal change in legal status.”
Under section 1021.5, a “successful party” means a “prevailing” party succeeding on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit sought in bringing the action. (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist., 36 Cal.App.5th 970, 982 (2019) [discussed in our June 9, 2019 post].) However, plaintiff failed on appeal to meet its burden of proving it was the prevailing party – citing to nothing in the stipulation or its complaint to support its prevailing party claim. Additionally, plaintiff failed to address defendant’s evidence of its ongoing efforts to remediate the impaired fish path – evidence that demonstrated there was no causal connection between plaintiff’s lawsuit and the relief obtained. The Third District affirmed.
Comments