Private Attorney General: Public Agency Prevailing Against Private Company Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees For Succeeding In Groundwater Contamination Case

Plain Meaning Of Section 1021.5 Supported The District Court’s Denial Of Fees To Plaintiff Agency.

               In Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., Case No. 22-55727 (9^th Cir. Apr. 15, 2024) (published), plaintiff water agency certainly prevailed against defendant company upon various torts and CERCLA based on alleged groundwater contamination.  Agency moved for private attorney general fees against defendant, a request denied by the district court.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed this determination, because the plain meaning of section 1021.5 only allows a public agency to obtain fees if it succeeds against another public agency—not against a private company like defendant.