Key Decision For Civil Rights and Municipal Attorneys To Read!
Beames v. City of Visalia, Case No. F075855 (5th Dist. Dec. 19, 2019) (published) is key reading for civil rights and municipal practitioners on attorney’s fees entitlement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
What happened in this case is that plaintiff/petitioner obtained superior court relief from a zoning hearing officer determination on a commercial property dispute where legalization of a business and a different problem had to be resolved. City, unfortunately, did not budge, the zoning administrative officer did not budge, but the trial court did do so by granting relief (not insubstantial in nature from a pragmatic perspective), although denying plaintiff’s request for fees under the federal civil rights statute as well as California’s private attorney general statute.
This fee denial got reversed, in somewhat emphatic fashion.
Although plaintiff did not prevail on the federal civil rights claims, plaintiff did on a state law claim in no small degree after City failed to crater at all. The problem was that the reasoning in Filipino Accountants Assn. v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 155 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1032 was really case determinative, because plaintiff did plead a substantial, non-federal civil rights claim and because plaintiff ultimately prevailed on a factually intertwined, non-civil rights claim. Given the liberal construction in the federal civil rights arena, the other arguments—no public interest and limited success—did not resonate based on the total circumstances of record. So, the matter was remanded to consider plaintiff’s fees under § 1988, not the private attorney general statute because this basis was forfeited on appeal.