Case Transferred Back to Appellate Court Based on Amendment Was
Remanded Back to Lower Court for Crucial Determinations on Fee
Entitlement.
In Travis v. County
of Santa Cruz, Case No. H029771 (6th Dist. Oct. 9, 2008) (unpublished), a
petitioner had spent years challenging Santa Cruz County's occupancy and rent
restrictions imposed by the former Second Unit Ordinance. He had some success,
and one aspect was in front of the California Supreme Court before being
transferred back to the Sixth District in light of a new ordinance amending the
old Second Unit Ordinance. The Sixth District decided, upon transfer from the
Supreme Court, that Travis' appeal was not moot, but that the trial court should
determine if he was entitled to writ relief in light of the
amendments.
The Sixth District also determined that the trial court was in the best
position to determine whether Travis was entitled to an attorney's fees award
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (the private attorney general
statute), because he was the catalyst motivating the changes adopted by Santa
Cruz County. The Court of Appeal in Travis observed that section 1021.5 may
require findings of fact, such that the trial court was best equipped to decide
whether fees should be awarded under that provision. The appellate court noted,
in line with most other intermediate courts of appeal in California, that it has
a similar rule regarding attorney's fees on appeal: "Although we have the power
to appraise and fix attorney fees on appeal, we deem it the better practice to
remand the cause to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of such
fees." (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1610 (2008).)