Citizens Group Awarded Over $175,000 in Fees For Successful Attack of Santa Barbara Proposed Housing Project.
Citizens Planning Association (CPA) were awarded over $175,000 in attorney’s fees ($117,228 lodestar, based on four attorneys charging $350 an hour, plus a $60,000 multiplier add-on) for successfully attacking the City of Santa Barbara’s environmental analysis of the proposed Veronica Meadows housing development. We assume the award was based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, California’s private attorney general statute. Judge Thomas Anderle awarded the multiplier because “[t]he fee award must be large enough to entice competent counsel to undertake difficult public-interest cases.”
However, in an interesting twist, the project’s developer agreed to assume the risks of all legal costs. Developer opposed the award on the grounds that the case was not that legally complicated and that no multiplier was justified under the circumstances. CPA’s attorneys spent nearly 1,000 hours prosecuting the cases, with no potential for recovery if they were unsuccessful. So far, the attorneys have not received a penny in fees, although co-contributors Marc and Mike would predict that there will be an appeal of the fees award by the developer.
For more detail on this award, see Nick Welsh’s article “CPA Lawyers Net Cash Award” in the April 16, 2009 edition of the Santa Barbara Independent and CPA attorney Marc Chytilo’s comments “That Was No Bonus” in the April 30, 2009 edition of the same paper (both available for viewing at independent.com).
Homeowner Prospective Landlord Will Have to Pay Fees to Discrimination Department Even Though Bulk of Case Dismissed.
Dan Bader, owner of a Newport Beach, CA house, advertised a room for rent on Craigslist. As an afterthought, he wrote that the rental unit was “well suited for professional adults” and “perfect for 1 or 2 professionals.” That set off a firestorm with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, which thought those few words implied discrimination against people with children. The council filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which in turn summoned Mr. Bader to a hearing in downtown Los Angeles.
Mr. Bader was told the complaint would be dropped if he paid the Orange County council $4,000 and agreed to five years of classes at $250 a class, after indicating that he did not discriminate but that the ads were a problem. Mr. Bader balked, with the state suing him for discrimination. He countersued the Fair Employment and Housing Department, the Orange County council, and council’s CEO D. Elizabeth Pierson. Last year, Orange County Superior Court Judge Andrew Banks dismissed Bader’s countersuit and indicated he would have to pay each of his opponents’ reasonable legal fees. (We assume the opponents won an anti-SLAPP motion.) To add insult to injury, the state dropped its lawsuit against Mr. Bader on the eve of trial. Mr. Bader moved to have the department and council pay his attorney’s fees in defense, but Judge Banks denied that request earlier last month.
Mr. Bader’s fee exposure comes to over $51,000—he had already paid Ms. Pierson $7,500 in fees; he may owe $7,000 each to the department and council; and he owes about $30,000 for his own defense. In retrospect, Mr. Bader says he would have paid the $4,000—even if it was “blackmail.” Council’s marketing director has been reported as saying the council dropped its suit because Mr. Bader already has to pay the council’s attorney’s fees. She also indicated that Mr. Bader had opportunities to mediate and resolve the matter, but declined.
For more on this one, see Brian Joseph’s OC Watchdog article “Bureau’s power scares homeowner,” published in the May 1, 2009 Local section of The Orange County Register.