Plaintiff’s Suit Was Not Frivolous Under Political Reform Act, With Defendants Not Showing An Important Right/Significant Benefit Were Vindicated Under CCP § 1021.5.
In Travis v. Brand, Case No. B298104 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 19, 2023) (published), the 2/8 DCA had to consider whether prevailing defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees under the Political Reform Act and under CCP § 1021.5 after the California Supreme Court decided that prevailing defendants are only entitled to Political Reform Act fee recovery if they can prove plaintiff’s case lacked foundation and then determine whether the trial court properly decided that fees were warranted under the private attorney general doctrine. Defendants were not successful in convincing the appellate court that a fee award was proper under either fee entitlement anchor.
With respect to the Political Reform Act entitlement basis, the appellate court examined the entire record and concluded that plaintiff’s suit had potential merit from the onset.
That swung things to the private attorney general justification. This ground did not prevail on appeal. Defendants did not show that they satisfied the important right and substantial benefit prongs of section 1021.5. Simply because an election law issue was involved did not per se give an imprimatur on private attorney general fees, given that defendants failed to show free speech rights were involved. Instead, only technical issues between the parties themselves were involved, issues which did not change any of the merit issues or focus for the electorate. Given this pragmatic assessment by the appellate court, two prongs of section 1021.5 were not satisfied so as to justify denial of private attorney general fees.
Comments