The Third District Applied The Standard For Determining Necessity Of Private Enforcement, Where The Attorney General Performs Its Function, Set Forth In Committee to Defend.
After the Attorney General filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate alleging defendant violated the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Rivers Act) (Public Resources Code § 5093.542), plaintiff filed a similar complaint alleging defendant violated the Rivers Act in North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District, Case No. C092233 (3rd Dist., June 28, 2021) (unpublished). After plaintiff and defendant entered a stipulation for entry of judgment, which was identical to the stipulated judgments entered in the Attorney General’s cases against defendant, plaintiff moved for more than $303,835 in attorney fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5. The trial court denied – finding that although plaintiff achieved a significant public benefit in obtaining the stipulated judgment, plaintiff provided nothing to show that it produced any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, contributing to the judgment, or any evidence that was not provided by the Attorney General. Therefore, plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of showing that it rendered necessary and significant services necessary to the success achieved.
The Third District – following the standard for determining necessity of private enforcement set forth in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. A Free Pregnancy Center, 229 Cal.App.3d 633 (1991) – found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.
In Committee to Defend, the trial court set forth two factors for trial courts to consider when determining whether the services of a private party were necessary where the Attorney General performs its function – whether the private party advanced significant factual or legal theories adopted by the court which were nonduplicative of those advanced by the governmental entity; and whether the private party produced substantial evidence significantly contributing to the court’s judgment which was not produced by the governmental entity, and which was neither duplicative of nor merely cumulative to the evidence produced by the governmental entity.