Trial Court Failed To Consider Whether Plaintiffs' Lawsuits Were The Catalyst For The Relief Obtained.
In Dept. of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases, Case NO. C091771 (3d Dist., May 11, 2022) (unpublished), lawsuits filed against Dept. of Water Resources regarding a project meant to improve the State’s water supply infrastructure were coordinated for trial, but voluntarily dismissed after DWR provided the primary relief sought by plaintiffs. After dismissal, plaintiffs moved for attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5 based on the catalyst theory – claiming that their litigation ultimately caused DWR to take the action it did. The trial court denied the motion – finding that DWR was motivated by a directive from the Governor, not by plaintiffs’ lawsuits.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in determining whether there was a causal link between plaintiffs’ lawsuits and the relief obtained, and that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that there was no causal link. The Third District agreed – finding abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to apply the correct legal standard as the trial court erroneously treated the Governor’s directive as the superseding cause of the relief obtained without considering whether plaintiffs’ lawsuits were a substantial factor in the Governor’s decision to issue the directive.
BLOG UPDATE: We can now report that this opinion was certified for publication on June 3, 2022.
Comments