Public Interest Nature of Litigation Was Evident, Rules High Court.
For all of you interested in private attorney general statute jurisprudence, the late breaking decision of the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc., Case No. S183372 (Cal. Supreme Court Oct. 31, 2011) is must reading.
Plaintiffs in this case won a prior appeal establishing trial courts have authority to determine reasonableness of fees charged by deposition reporters to nonnoticing parties. The lower court denied a CCP § 1021.5 fees request of $50,000, finding plaintiff deposition reporters acted in their own interest and only incidentally conferred a benefit on other litigants based on Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008).
The Supreme Court reversed, finding plaintiffs’ appeal did involve an important right affecting a public interest. In the process, it clarified and narrowed the applicability of Joshua S., a parental rights case of a much different (and private) nature. Here, the deposition officers were not just private litigants only pursuing private rights, but were parties responsible for the policy or practice that gave right to public interest litigation generating lots of appellate opinions on statutory authority that would not have been vetted but for the verve of the deposition officers here.