$433,905 Was The Ask, But Nothing Awarded At Trial Level, Affirmed On Appeal.
Financial incentives and avoidances are always at play in private attorney general fee requests. Unfortunately, petitioners drew the short end of the stick at both the trial and appellate levels in Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2024) (unpublished).
People of the State of California obtained TROS against Chapel and its pastors to have them comply with COVID-19 health orders. The People then commenced contempt proceedings against Chapel for violations of court orders, being granted contempt orders and monetary sanctions. The Sixth District, in a prior opinion, annulled the orders and the sanctions, finding the indoor gatherings restrictions were unconstitutional after a SCOTUS decision that the lower court did not have the benefit of. Chapel and one of the pastors brought an attorney’s fees motion under the private attorney general statute, seeking $433,905 in fees. The lower court denied the request.
The Sixth District affirmed. It first had to face whether the order denying private attorney general fees is appealable because it occurred in the context of contempt proceedings, which are not appealable. The appellate court decided to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate for purposes of reaching the merits. On the merits, the Court of Appeal found that Chapel’s self-interest in avoiding contempt findings and significant monetary sanctions was enough of a financial “positive side” to justify denial of the fee request, finding persuasive the reasoning in In re Head, 42 Cal.3d 223, 228 (1986).
Comments