Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Court’s Conclusion.
Fudge v. City of Laguna Beach, Case No. G055711 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 13, 2019) (published) involves, as frequently happens, a dispute by coastal neighbors over a municipal grant of a coastal development permit (CDP). Real party in interest neighbor #1 obtained from Laguna Beach a CDP to demolish his house. Plaintiff neighbor # 2 challenged the permit before the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and in state court. Neighbor #2 was granted a de novo appeal by the CCC, prompting the trial judge to dismiss the state court suit. Neighbor #2 argued he prevailed, but the trial court denied the fee motion. The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth’s colorful writing style, affirmed both the merits and fee denial. Here is what he said on that last ruling: “One last matter must be dealt with: Attorney fees. In yet another irony, Fudge [neighbor #2] sought his attorney fees in the trial court even though he lost. The trial court unsurprisingly denied the request. Fudge’s theory derived from the idea that if his appeal to the Commission had indeed nullified the City’s grant of the CDP, he had won. This is an argument of impressive agility, but little convincing force. The very fact Fudge is sufficiently aggrieved by the trial court’s dismissal of the case to bring this appeal (see Code Civ. Proc., § 902) militates against characterizing the result below as a victory. The court correctly denied attorney fees.”