Successful Result Only Made Sure Proper Findings Made, Not Vindicating Important Public Right Or Impacting Others Beyond Successful Party’s Constituents.
In Newhall School Dist. v. Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School Dist., Case No. B267856 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished), Newhall obtained a partial grant of its writ petition vacating Acton-Agua’s approval of another charter school to be located within Newhall’s jurisdiction under the Charter Schools Act. However, the trial judge did not void the charter, but remanded for more fact finding which, on remand, resulted in approval of the other charter school within Newhall’s jurisdiction. Newhall moved for an award of private attorney general fees of $211,902 and costs of $14,001, a request denied by the trial judge.
The 2/3 DCA affirmed. Although Newhall was successful, it failed to show that it enforced an important public right and failed to show a significant benefit on a large class of persons, independent elements of the CCP § 1021.5 test for private attorney general fee/expense entitlement.
With respect to the public right element, the trial judge was right to characterize the dispute as a parochial “turf battle” over who decides to charter a school, with Newhall only getting a limited win over a school to be chartered (and one which ultimately was chartered) within Newhall’s jurisdiction. In essence, Newhall was vindicating its own interests and did not enforce any constitutional much less important statutory right (although statutory rights were tangentially involved).
On the significant benefit factor, the only real benefit accrued to Newhall’s constituents, not all chartered schools’ constituents. Although the result in the case may have had some impact in lawsuits involving two close-by school districts, it certainly did not affect those other districts’ constituents, but only had possible assistance in those lawsuits.