Public Interest, Significant Benefit, and Financial Burden Components Are Analyzed in this One; Section 998 Rejected Offer Also Considered.
An ex-Chowchilla police chief (Mr. Robinson) won a Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) claim against the City, with the trial court later awarding $50,140 on a separate contract claim. Previously, however, Mr. Robinson rejected a $61,592.47 CCP § 998 offer. The Fifth District, in an earlier decision published decision, vindicated Mr. Robinson’s win on the POBRA claim.
In Robinson v. City of Chowchilla, Case No. F060571 (5th Dist. Dec. 27, 2011) (certified for partial publication; 998 offer discussion not published), the trial court denied Mr. Robinson’s motion for attorney’s fees under the private attorney general statute (CCP § 1021.5) and granted the City’s motion to tax costs based on Mr. Robinson’s rejection of the 998 offer–prompting yet another appeal by Mr. Robinson.
He won the most significant battle by obtaining a reversal of the fee denial. In must reading for practitioners involved in § 1021.5 fee-shifting contests, the Fifth District concluded that he did enforce an important public interest right in the POBRA area, especially given the prior published decision and the expression of importance of rights in the whole POBRA area. When it came to the significant benefit prong of the private attorney general statute, the appellate court found that the financial interest of Mr. Robinson versus benefit for others was a very nuanced determination–with nothing in governing law dictating that a secondary benefit for others cannot qualify for a fee award even though the primary benefit was for the individual alone. (“Practitioners are cautioned about using the ‘primary effect’ language as a substitute for analyzing the criteria in section 1021.5 separately.”) Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010) needed to guide the financial burden analysis, with the substantial fees incurred and paid by Mr. Robinson ($232,000) to be considered quite heavily on remand given that the case was going to be redetermined anyway.
On the 998 issue, nothing showed that the costs denial was incorrect. However, the reversal of the fee denial meant that this redetermination might affect whether Mr. Robinson ultimately recovers down the line, with the issue being put in limbo.