Private Attorney General: $105,797.40 Fee Award To Some Validation Action Challengers Affirmed On Appeal

Fifth District Affirmed After Independent Review Of Significant Benefit Prong Because Remand Would Be Futile Under An Abuse Of Discretion Standard.

               In Westlands Water District v. All Persons Interested etc., Case No. F085374 (5^th Dist. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth District reviewed an attorney’s fees award against Water District and in favor of four challengers to a validation action filed by District, which was dismissed earlier because District’s proposed extended contract with the federal government had key missing terms.  The validation action was dismissed, with that determination affirmed in an earlier Fifth District decision which was published because it involved first impression issues.  Later, the lower court awarded the challengers $105,797.40 in attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5, California’s private attorney general statute.  District appealed this award, claiming the respondents were not successful, no enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest was involved, and respondents did not confer a significant benefit on the public in general.

               The Fifth District affirmed the fee award.  It had no problem finding that respondents were successful, because they obtained dismissal of the validation action—their primary litigation objective.  On the important public interest right prong of § 1021.5, it agreed that the result did vindicate the objectives of opposing validation actions and promoted transparency/accountability with respect to public contracts.  The troubling element for the appellate court was the substantial benefit element of § 1021.5.  It agreed that a Brown Act argument did not support an award under this prong, because no Brown Act violation was alleged and there were cure issues which would have been operative.  The Water Code issue was secondary to the ultimate outcome, so that did not help.  However, the publication of the prior appeal on novel issues did satisfy the substantial benefit element, such that there was no need for a remand because this rationale showed that the lower court’s ruling was no abuse of discretion, relying on its own earlier appellate opinion in Robinson v. City of Chowchilla in reaching this result.