Private Attorney General: $239,479.65 Full Lodestar Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 Was Reversed As A Matter Of Law On Appeal

Petitioner Had An Enormous Financial Exposure Which Eclipsed Its Financial Costs In The Case And Related Proposition 65 Litigation.

            Under CCP § 1021.5, a litigant seeking fees under this statute has the burden of satisfying all the predicate requirements.  This burden of proof must be satisfied; and, if not, a fee award can get reversed as a matter of law on appeal, as it was in Valley Water Management Co. v. Superior Court (Cal. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley), Case No. F083744 (5^th Dist. Mar. 28, 2023) (unpublished).

            What happened in this one is that Valley Water was facing a Proposition 65 lawsuit and decided to challenge the Water Board’s blanket designation of some groundwater near its oil facility as being acceptable for municipal or agricultural issue, getting some successful relief in a mandamus action and parlaying that into a settlement of the Proposition 65 case.  (As an interesting aside, the Proposition 65 settlement was $645,000, $481,000 which represented reimbursement of plaintiffs’ fees, experts’ fees, and costs.)  Valley Water then moved for 1021.5 fees against the Water Board, requesting a lodestar of $239,479.65 plus a 1.5 positive multiplier.  The lower court awarded Valley Water the full $239,479.65 lodestar request.

            That fee award was reversed as a matter of law on appeal—or, put another way, went POOF!  The problem was that Valley Water could not hurdle the Whitley financial cost/benefit analysis.  (Whitley is our Leading Case No. 14.)  Valley Water faced tremendous exposure for the groundwater classification in both the Proposition 65 litigation and under a Water Board cease-and-desist looming dispute, with its success in the mandamus action staunching its exposure in the Proposition 65 case.  Given this financial assessment, Valley Water did not surmount the Whitley financial factor.