Private, Not Public, Interest Dispute Involved Only.
Okay, hot balloon enthusiasts, this next case is for you.
In JCM Farming, Inc. v. Fantasy Balloon Flights, Case No. G048938 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff owned a farming operation/orchard in Riverside County and sued certain hot balloon operating defendants (including the U.S. in one amendment) for nuisance and related claims. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all its claims, but the private defendants did not give up so fast. They sought to recover over $337,000 in attorney’s fees under California’s private attorney general statute, arguing that plaintiff’s suit was essentially one to eliminate the ballooning industry in the Coachella Valley.
Didn’t work at either the trial or appellate levels. Both courts viewed this as a classic private dispute between parties involving damages to a single property owner, not one involving the public interest. In essence, that was the bottom line, in a 3-0 panel decision authored by Acting Presiding Justice Fybel.