The Reason Was The Failure To Satisfy Whitley Financial Stake Aspect Of 1021.5.
If you know our website, go to Leading Cases, and look under Whitley (No. 14). This is a key case for analyzing financial costs/benefits to satisfy one prong under California’s private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5). Although a plaintiff won in Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara, Case No. B316993 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 12, 2023) (unpublished), he thought his victory would get fees. He was wrong because his proof of financial stake in the litigation was deficient.
Plaintiff did prevail on a short-term vacation rental ban dispute in California’s coastal zone, primarily Santa Barbara. He initially was denied 1021.5 fees for failure to demonstrate his personal stake in the litigation, but he then made a renewed motion showing he incurred $600,000 in fees and only “netted” $41,693 from the coastal properties in question. The lower court considered the renewed request but again denied fees to plaintiff.
The lower court denied because it was expecting to see some historical earnings for plaintiff in properties both before and after the ban. That evidence was not proffered, such that it no abuse of discretion in denying fees altogether.
This case does tell plaintiffs seeking 1021.5 fees to be attuned to making some very specific showings of financial stake under Whitley—skimpy showings can end up in the result here, much to the chagrin of the prevailing plaintiff.
Comments