Board Member Vindicated No Interest and Prior Board Sanctions Showed No Real Change to the Status Quo.
Although this case got quite a bit of publicity in the San Diego County area, it went away with a relative whimper.
In Tri-City Healthcare District v. Sterling, Case Nos. D059810 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2013) (unpublished), Tri-City Health Care District board member Kathleen Sterling prevailed on district’s attempts to obtain protective orders to enjoin her from having contact with certain individuals based on workplace violence allegations. She then sought to recover $556,355 in attorney’s fees (including a 4.0 multiplier) under the private attorney general statute, a request denied altogether by the lower court.
Everything was affirmed in this one, both merits and fee denial challenges.
Ms. Sterling’s main argument to the fee denial was that she benefited the public because she was a board member garnering a lot of public votes and the defeated restriction would have prevented her from exercising her freedom to speak/assemble. The appellate court disagreed, finding no significant benefit was conferred on the general public and no important right was vindicated. Her desire to be reelected was a personal matter. Also, there were prior Board censures/sanctions such that the protective orders defeat maintained a status quo which did not confer any new benefit.