Fee Award Was Less Than Requested $188,806.50.
Miner’s Camp, LLC v. Foresthill Public Utility District, Case No. C088828 (3d Dist. June 23, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how private attorney general awards will be allowed even where the litigant has some self-interest in the fight, as long as an award is not disproportionate and benefits others.
What happened in this one was that plaintiff, a property owner in the unincorporated community of Foresthill, CA, successfully challenged a water district’s rate increase under Proposition 218. After the win, plaintiff moved for $188,806.50 in private attorney general fees, with the lower court awarding $89,500.
The water district’s appeals of the merits determination and fee award were unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s win had benefited all the district’s customers, not just plaintiff, through the abandonment of its deficient rate structure—a significant nonpecuniary benefit to others. Then, district argued that plaintiff had a self-interest in paying less while continuing to take eight cabins’ worth of water every month. However, a litigant’s pecuniary interest in the litigation outcome is not disqualifying, only if the expected value of the plaintiff’s own monetary award exceeds by a substantial margin the actual litigation costs. In fact, the primary effect test for purposes of a plaintiff’s personal economic interest is really confined to catalyst issues, not rising to disqualification automatically outside of those situations. Finally, the necessity of private enforcement prong was cleared because nothing indicated the district was going to voluntarily change its water rate structure to comply with Proposition 218—especially given that the district rejected plaintiff’s government claim and refused to change its rate structure. Fee award affirmed.
Comments