We Link the Settlement Agreement Because It Has Interesting Provisions.
As reported in the January 26, 2014 edition of The Orange County Register, City of Anaheim—after spending more than $1.26 million in fees—decided to settle a challenge over minority voting rights in a way that allows voters to consider a charter amendment potentially altering the way City Council members are elected—a change in electing council members through the at-large electoral system versus a single member district electoral system.
However, the rub is that the California Voting Rights Act (Election Code section 14030) has a fee-shifting provision that makes fee entitlement mandatory for prevailing party plaintiffs. Plaintiff in Moreno v. Anaheim reportedly has spent $1 million to date in fees. So how did the settlement deal with the fee issue? Here is how: (1) Plaintiff’s attorneys would submit fee documentation and the parties could see if they can reach agreement on what to pay, with full payment due within 135 days of such an agreement and a $25,000 multiplier paid to plaintiff’s attorneys along with the first payment; or (2) if there was disagreement over the amount of fees, a fee motion would be presented before the trial judge for resolution, with City not challenging fee entitlement but with “fees on fees” being capped on a specified basis and with no multiplier being allowed. For those of you that are interested, here is a link to the settlement agreement.
BLOG OBSERVATION—In one of the only previously litigated cases in this area, both a trial and an appellate court determined that plaintiff in a Voting Rights Case was only entitled to fees of $162,500 out of a requested $1.7 million based on inflated fee requests. (See Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, reported in our February 28, 2012 post.)