1.25 Multiplier On Merits Work Was Sustained On Appeal.
Plaintiff non-profit in Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City, Case No. B321477 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 27, 2023) (published) invalidated a Culver City ordinance reducing the intensity of land use as being violative of California’s housing shortage dictates. Then, the trial judge awarded plaintiff $131,813.58 in private attorney general fees, consisting of a 1.25 multiplier on merits work (but less than the 3.0 multiplier request).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the fee award. City argued that there was no significant benefit to a large class of persons, but the 2/4 DCA rejected this argument because there does not need to be a consensus in policy on addressing important issues to confer a significant benefit, especially considering the housing shortage concerns in California. The 1.25 multiplier award was no abuse of discretion because (1) a first impression issue was involved; (2) non-profit’s attorneys obtained an excellent result; (3) the requesting attorneys’ hourly rates were lower than for commensurate L.A. cases; (4) the fee award inured to the benefit of the non-profit; and (5) the fee award would be borne by taxpayers, with the actual multiplier not being penal in nature.
Comments