Factual Nature Of The Specific Issue Was Dispositive.
Litigants which win some relief against a municipality may be entitled to private attorney general fees under CCP § 1021.5. However, there are several elements they must surmount, including a paramount concern that they vindicated a significant benefit on behalf of the public or a large class of persons.
Unfortunately, the lower court in Cassilly v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B311132 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 6, 2022) (unpublished) found that a conceptually important right was vindicated but it was not a “significant benefit” in denying fees to partially prevailing plaintiffs. The appellate court agreed.
Plaintiffs did win a narrow dispute against Los Angeles based on whether a historical assessment needed to be made to demolish and rebuild a house in the Venice area of L.A. The trial court granted very narrow relief on whether a survey creating a presumption of a historical resource was in play, but it did not rule out that a further historical resource assessment or EIR might be needed in the future, given some discretionary decisions in this area by the city. The city did some technical amendments in line with the lower court’s ruling. Plaintiffs then moved for CCP § 1021.5 attorney’s fees, which were denied.
Both the lower and appellate courts acknowledged that because CEQA rights were involved, a “conceptual” important right was involved. But that is where the discussion dovetailed into the factual weeds of the case. The problem is that the survey issue did impact some Venice property owners, but the city’s discretion on the issue made it a fact-by-fact determination, with no proof showing a uniform municipal practice of requiring a EIR across the board. Given the discretionary nature of decision making on this issue and lack of a uniform policy, the fee denial was affirmed on appeal.
Comments