County Actually Voluntarily Made Refunds; Class Rep’s Getting Refunds To 11 “Overlooked” Persons Did Not Constitute Substantial Class Of Persons.
Puck. 1907. Library of Congress.
Kuklenski v. County of Ventura, Case No. B251956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 1, 2014) (unpublished) involved a situation where a certain person who never sued brought a claim resulting in the County of Ventura offering refunds to persons who apparently were impermissibly charged for DUI blood draws, with the refunds also encompassing interest and removal of negative credit derogs for not paying the charges. Later, a class representative (a different individual) did sue, but the County gave him a refund (with interest) and then refunded 11 “overlooked” individuals brought to County’s attention through the class representative’s efforts. Eventually, the suit was dismissed, bringing an appeal on the merits and a challenge to the lower court’s refusal to award class representative fees under CCP § 1021.5.
The merits and fee determinations were affirmed on appeal.
With respect to the fees, the class representative was not the catalyst for the County’s refund decision—that was brought about by the actions of the initial individual who never brought suit. (The County gave the refunds despite denying a formal tort claim, with class representative not bringing a tort claim—something he should have done.) Although the class representative did provide a benefit for the 11 “overlooked” individuals, the trial and appellate courts determined this was not a substantial enough class of individuals to justify private attorney general fees.