Decision Shows The Proper Way For A Plaintiff To Show It Was A Catalyst And To Substantiate Its Fee Request With Great Detail Before The Trial Judge.
For public interest and governmental lawyers, The Kennedy Comm’n v. City of Huntington Beach, Case Nos. E078403 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 11, 2023) (published) is a must read in the CCP § 1021.5 private attorney general area on catalyst and fee reasonableness issues. The opinion is 43 pages long, but we will try to distill it quite nicely below.
The trial judge, after some prior determinations leading to prior appeals, ultimately awarded $3,531,201.10 to plaintiff (the full ask and inclusive of a positive 1.4 multiplier), with plaintiff claiming to be a catalyst for purposes of Huntington Beach making changes to accommodate low-income housing under California’s Housing Element Law. City’s problem on appeal was that it could not blunt that plaintiff did vindicate an important issue (public housing) and that it was a catalyst for change based on some shifting legislative developments. The factual determinations on being a catalyst were reviewed deferentially. As to reasonableness of fees, plaintiff submitted detailed declarations from working attorneys, detailed billing statements, and a civil rights expert which were not matched in quality by the City’s opposition submissions. That lead to an affirmance of the “full ask,” not to mention that the 1.4 multiplier was warranted due to the complexity of the matter and with the case being litigated by volunteer attorneys in some major respects who had no expectancy of a fee recovery. Fee award affirmed.
Comments