Second District Eliminates a $254,087.77 Fee/Costs Award to Prevailing CEQA Plaintiff Where Significant Public Benefit Element Not Demonstrated As a Matter of Law.
Under California’s private attorney fees statute, a trial court may award attorney’s fees to a successful party in any public interest action involving an important public right if (1) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (2) the financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (3) such fees should not be paid out of any recovery to the successful party. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1021.5.) The crucial element in this provision that most frequently presents concerns for claimants is demonstration of a significant public benefit. For example, the mere vindication of a statutory violation—such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concerns—is not equivalent to a substantial benefit, by itself. (See, e.g., Concerned Citizens of La Habra v. City of La Habra, 131 Cal.App.4th 329, 335 (2005); Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council, 23 Cal.3d 917, 939 (1979).)
In The Right Site Coalition v. L.A. Unified School Dist., Case No. B202200 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 25, 2008) (unpublished), plaintiff Coalition successfully won mandate requiring the School District to comply with CEQA by preparing an environmental impact report (EIR). The Coalition moved for a fee award under section 1021.5, seeking a total of $327,636.92. However, Coalition only devoted two paragraphs of its opening motion papers on the significant public benefit issue. In opposition, School District argued vigorously that this element was not satisfied because the issuance of mandate earlier did not impact the District’s EIR policies and mandate only corrected a procedural defect in District’s approach to CEQA. Coalition beefed up its justification on this element in its reply papers. The trial court awarded Coalition fees and costs totaling $254,087.77 under section 1021.5. School District appealed.
On review, the Second District, Division Three—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice Klein—focused on the significant public benefit element. The appellate panel then went through the alleged benefits, determining that they only helped a small segment of the population or that the beneficial changes taking place were not attributable to the EIR. Because Coalition did not meet its burden in the lower court, the Court of Appeal concluded the fee award was unsupported and had to be eliminated.
(BLOG OBSERVATION—Although professing to apply the abuse of discretion standard, it looks to us that this was closer to a de novo review. We have found that appellate courts frequently give fee awards against the public fisc a more heightened scrutiny.)