Even An Objective Whitley Analysis Justified The Lower Court Decision, Especially Where The Ultimate Award Was Less Than The Requested $240,000 In Fees.
Under our category “Private Attorney General,” we have posted on numerous decisions on fee awards under CCP § 1021.5. Many involve the costs/benefit “financial prong” analysis required under Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1214-1215 (2010) [our Leading Case No. 14]. Here, the trial court decision to order a reduced fee request was warranted based on an objective, costs-benefit analysis under Whitley.
In Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist., Case No. A160420 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 27, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained partial success in his challenge to a groundwater-extraction cap that the District applied to his property, in a published decision. Plaintiff had some draconian options to pay (likely $141,000) or to abandon with a reducing to property value up to $59,000. After his win, plaintiff moved to recover $240,000 in section 1021.5 fees, with the lower court awarding $129,000 to plaintiff as against the District.
District’s appeal on the Whitley financial prong did not prevail. Under an objective “costs-benefit” analysis, plaintiff demonstrated enough of a range to show that his expenditure in fees deserved section 1021.5 compensation, especially given the uncertainties in outcome: plaintiff’s potential upside was $141,000 if he did not decide to abandon his well as a source of groundwater or at least a $59,000 property loss if he did abandon much less puruse an extraction permit including possibly more loss of property value. Given these ranges of uncertainty, the section 1021.5 fees expenditures certainly were way beyond what plaintiff could have recovered personally in this case—given the analysis is not a post facto review.