Prelitigation Demand, Causation, And Primary Relief Elements Were Satisfied.
Plaintiffs in San Diego Tenant Union v. San Diego Housing Comm’n, Case No. D081773 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendant to force it to increase housing-assisted payments in wealthier neighborhood, advancing a perpetual segregation theory under FEHA, the Unruh Act, contractual breach under a HUD contract, and discrimination with respect to state-funded program. Several years into the litigation, defendant voluntary increased payments in line with a HUD program, triggering plaintiffs to dismiss their action. Both sides moved for fees and costs. Plaintiffs obtained an award of $1,050,308.45 in fees and $4,691.31 in costs under a private attorney general catalyst theory. In contrast, defendant’s requests were denied. Defendant appealed.
The 4/1 DCA affirmed, determining that the CCP § 1021.5 fees and costs award was proper under an abuse of discretion standard given the factual determinations which were made by the lower court. Three arguments were raised, and they were resolved this way: (1) the prelitigation demand requirement under Graham was satisfied by a letter and statements made in public hearings so as to put defendant on notice; (2) the lawsuit was a motivating catalyst because defendant did increase the payments based on inferences drawn from the evidentiary record; and (3) plaintiffs did obtain their primary relief because defendant did make a policy change during the course of the litigation.
Comments