Special Fee Shifting Statutes: In A 2-1 Opinion, 4/1 DCA Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Under A Stipulated Judgment As A Catalyst In A California Public Records Act Case

Dissenting Justice Believed Prevailing Party’s Last Year Of Litigation Was Unnecessary Such That Fees For Those Efforts Were Unreasonable.

               In Castanares v. City of San Diego, Case No. D082562 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 30, 2024) (unpublished), a lower court entered judgment based on the parties’ stipulation that City had violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and plaintiff was the prevailing party.  The lower court awarded plaintiff CPRA fees, reducing the hourly rate of one senior attorney, reducing lodestar hours from 20 to 12 hours, and rejecting a positive multiplier request.  City appealed.

               The fee award was affirmed in a 2-1 unpublished opinion.  The majority found that plaintiff was a catalyst for City to produce documents, that City took contradictory positions in informal settlement discussions or reactions to plaintiff’s CCP § 998 offers (before finally relenting in the stipulated judgment), and that the fees were not unreasonably inflated given the reduction in one attorney’s hourly rate and the reduction in lodestar hours.

               The dissent saw things much differently.  The dissenting justice believed that the City had consistently decided to stipulate to a judgment in settlement discussions and took positions in answers to avoid a default, rendering a year of litigation unreasonable.  These perceptions were cemented by plaintiff’s counsel’s concession at oral argument that much of the litigation centered on getting an admission from City that the CPRA violation was intentional, which did not have substantive significance.  The dissent felt that only about 2.4 hours were compensable, not the additional year of litigation work that he determined to be unnecessary.