Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects Public Interest and Significant Benefit Challenges to Fee Award.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (California’s private attorney general statute) allows a litigant to obtain attorney’s fees where the requesting party shows that the litigation (1) served to vindicate an important public right, (2) conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons, and (3) was necessary and imposed a financial burden on plaintiffs which was out of proportion to their individual stake in the matter. (Punsly v. Ho, 105 Cal.App.4th 102, 109 (2003).) Elements 2 and 3 were under the microscope in a challenge to a fee award in the next unpublished decision we discuss arising from the aftermath of 1994 voter approval of Proposition C, an initiative paving the way for construction and operation of a privately owned solid waste facility in northern San Diego County.
In RiverWatch v. County of San Diego Dept. of Environmental Health, Case No. D049216 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 12, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiffs RiverWatch, Pala Band of Mission Indians, and City of Oceanside were successful in three aspects of their CEQA challenges to the Proposition C project’s final environmental impact report relating to traffic needs assessment, water sources for construction/operation of the landfill, and inadequacy of mitigation measures. Later, the trial court awarded fees of $239,620 (out of requested fees of $455,138.12 and requested costs of $27,340.94) to RiverWatch and Pala Band. DEH and developer Gregory Canyon Ltd. were not happy about the fee award, and appealed.
Native American woman making baskets outside thatched dwelling at Pala near San Diego, California. c1914. Library of Congress.
The Fourth District, Division 2, in a 3-0 opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Huffman, affirmed the fee award by Judge Michael M. Anello (a past San Diego Superior Court judge who is now a sitting federal district judge).
The trial judge correctly found that element 3 was satisfied because the cost of plaintiffs’ victory transcended their personal interests in the case. Although there was conflicting evidence, the lower court was within its province to credit plaintiffs’ declaration indicating that the landfill would not economically impact its nearby casino and that a motivating factor for the challenges was protection of sacred religious sites such as Gregory Mountain (an interest that protected the interests of all Luiseno people, not just the Pala Band). The Court of Appeal also found distinguishable the decisions relied on by defendants. See Punsly, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th 102, 118 [defendant prevailing in visitation dispute with her daughter’s paternal grandparents was intensely personal in nature, not justifying 1021.5 fees]; Hammond v. Agran, 99 Cal.App.4th 115, 118-119 (2002) [city council candidate’s litigation over accuracy of his statement during an election vindicated mainly his personal credibility]; Christward Ministry v. County of San Diego, 13 Cal.App.4th 31, 36, 39, 48-50 (1993) [plaintiff’s objection to landfill for obstruction of panoramic views to its religious retreat was a private interest for which fees were not justified].
Justice Huffman also found that the trial court correctly determined that a significant benefit had been conferred from the plaintiffs’ efforts. Their action required defendants to address certain EIR issues of importance—traffic impacts and adequate water supply. These issues were important for the environment and thus to the public at large. “With drought a persistent threat in California, public agencies and members of the public living and working near the proposed project site benefited from the court requiring DEH to specifically identify and address the sources of water necessary to construct and operate the landfill.” (Slip Opn., at p. 19.)
Defendants finally argued that plaintiffs were “not successful” because they lost numerous issues in the case. Wrong, said the appellate panel. Plaintiffs prevailed on three significant issues, and the lower court did reduce the amount of fees by nearly 50% on other grounds.