Case Was Not Unusual For Allowing A Fee Award Under Cases Which Did Allow Under Rare Circumstances Where A Benefit Exceeded Litigation Costs.
In Williams v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A162966 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff won $1.326 million in a jury verdict against County for a public property dangerous condition where, on a bicycle, she struck a pothole. In a prior appeal, County argued that she assumed the risk, but the appellate court rejected that argument based on the particular facts of the case—a narrow decision, although published. Plaintiff then filed to recover lodestar attorney’s fees of $112,710 against County under CCP § 1021.5. The lower court denied them based on the reasoning that her costs/benefits in the litigation, given the substantial jury verdict (even if discounted by 50% as far as hindsight expectancy which did occur), did not fall within unusual cases warranting such an award.
The 1/5 DCA affirmed. The appellate court did a nice review of “unusual cases” warranting a 1021.5 award where litigant’s expected benefits exceeded its actual costs. The problem is that plaintiff did not fall within these categories because the published decision was quite narrow, plaintiff was not seriously impecunious, and her judgment was of the type that could fund an attorney to litigate the matter. [If you want to know the “unusual cases” distinguished, they are Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 188 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 (1986); City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System, 29 Cal.App.5th 688, 703, 708 (2018); and Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, 235 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1418 (1991).]
Comments