Private Attorney General: $38,733.75 Fee Award Under CCP § 1021.5 To Mobile Home Park HOA And Against Mobile Home Park Owner Was Affirmed On Appeal

HOA Was Dismissed On County’s Demurrer Such That It Was Successful, Vindicating A Broader Interest Of Mobile Home Park Residents Throughout The County Because They Needed To Be Part Of The Mobile Park Owner’s Judicial Writ Proceeding Case.

            In Pinto Lake M.H.P., LLC v. County of Santa Cruz, Case No. H050374 (6^th Dist. July 28, 2023) (unpublished), mobile park owner Pinto Lake tried to increase rents for mobile park residents, with an administrative hearing officer denying the requested 47% increase.  Pinto Lake filed a combined administrative mandamus/declaratory and injunctive relief suit naming the County and hearing officer as respondents.  County demurred on the basis that the mobile park residents were necessary parties to the judicial proceeding, but in an earlier opinion the Sixth District remanded to the lower court to determine if they were indispensable parties such that the matter could not proceed.   Pinto Lake, after conceding that a 90-day statute of limitations had lapsed to preclude making residents parties to the lawsuit, Pinto Lake tried to amend its pleading to name the Mobile Home Park Homeowners’ Association (HOA) as a defendant.  HOA demurred and, at a further hearing on County’s original demurrer, the lower court determined the residents were indispensable parties and the HOA could not be added as a party because it exceeded the scope of the Sixth District’s limited remand.

            HOA moved for attorney’s fees of $38,733.55 against Pinto Lake, with the lower court granting them under the private attorney general statute (with no multiplier).

            The Sixth District affirmed the fee award to HOA.  HOA was a successful party because it participated in the litigation to extricate itself as a party, no matter how it procedurally ensued.  It enforced an important public right for a large group of persons, namely, mobile home park residents throughout Santa Cruz, given the lower court ruling that those residents were indispensable parties to the subsequent judicial proceeding and had a right to participate in the proceeding.  The financial burden on the HOA was present because the HOA’s attorneys took the matter on with no prospect of gaining a financial recovery and because most mobile park residents had none or little resources to spare to fund litigation by the HOA.