Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Section 1021.5 Fee Request Properly Denied Where Trial Court Concluded That Its Government Claim/Suit Did Not Inspire Government Action On Health Permits During The Covid Pandemic

Substantial Evidence Was The Review Standard, So The Factual Finding Submarined A Catalyst Theory Challenge On Appeal.

               In Costeaux French Bakery, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, Case No. A166727 (1^st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff sought private attorney general’s fees under a catalyst theory.  What basically happened was that the County undertook many efforts to help businesses during the COVID pandemic, including relief on health permits and infusions of moneys.  At the end of the effort, plaintiff filed a government claim and lawsuit, later settling and claiming it was the catalyst for the County granting relief on health permit issues.  Both the trial and appellate courts disagreed.  This was a factual determination which could go either way, but the lower court found plaintiff’s litigation was not a substantial factor in County’s actions which had been underway for months.  Fee denial affirmed given that substantial evidence supported the non-catalyst determinations.