Both Sides Appeal, One Claiming No Fee Entitlement and the Other Claiming an Enhancement Should Have Been Awarded; Result? Affirmed in Full.
GH Capital, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B221987 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 26, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting for its facts and its affirmance of a $125,000 fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 to intervenor Brentwood Community Council (BCC).
The primary dispute revolved around the Hotel Angeleno, a 16-story, circular, high-rise Holiday Inn hotel located in Brentwood, adjacent to the I-405 and Sunset Boulevard. In essence, BCC successfully helped contest a mandate petition to rescind a City directive to demolish an exterior lighting installed by owner, a lighting system that had ultra-powerful brightness that apparently did not fit in with neighborhood residences and businesses. BCC sought $181,900 in fees plus $30,000 in “fees on fees”, as well as a 40% fee enhancement (or, altogether, a requested award of $284,660). The trial court granted BCC a fee award of $125,000 under the private attorney general statute, with no enhancement at all. Both sides appealed the fee award.
Justice Chaney, in a thoughtful 3-0 opinion for the Second District, Division 1, affirmed the fee award. Certainly, BCC was successful and vindicated an important public interest given the protection of several residential communities and visitors from the brightly lighted hotel. Important public rights are generally at stake in litigation to enforce compliance with planning and zoning laws. (Bowman v. City of Berkeley, 131 Cal.App.4th 173, 176 (2005).) A large class of people were benefited, including the residents of Brentwood and membership of BCC (a community organization in Brentwood representing HOAs, businesses, youth groups, schools, religious groups, volunteer service grounds, multi-family residential dwellers, public safety and environmental organizations). BCC’s victory transcended its own personal interests because its expenses were disproportionate to its goals and the overall total benefits went to the general surrounding community.
As far as the failure to award a multiplier, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing an enhancement under the circumstances. No statement of decision was required on the issue, but the trial court did correctly conclude that the fees it awarded did compensate adequately BCC’s counsel for one administrative hearing and 3-4 motion proceedings in court (or, in a bad pun, “inn” court).
American scenery – The Inn on the Roadside. c1872. Library of Congress.