However, Portion Of Fee Award Awarded Against Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Was Reversed On Appeal Because It Was Not An “Opposing Party” Under CCP § 1021.5, Meaning City Bore All Of The Fee Exposure.
In Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. City of Fresno, Case Nos. F090084 et al. (5th Dist. Oct. 8, 2026) (unpublished), a nonprofit plaintiff established that a 52.17% passage vote on Measure P (a local measure to pass a .375% local sales tax for public park, trails, recreation programs, and cultural events) was valid, despite the City and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association arguing a two-thirds vote was necessary based on dueling declaratory relief complaints by City and the nonprofit (with HJTA intervening in case City did not fight hard enough). In the end, nonprofit prevailed, which then led to its attorney’s fees requests relating to two phases of the litigation. The lower court awarded attorney’s fees as follows: (1) for litigation phase 1, $224,460 (a slight reduction from the nonprofit’s ask, but a denial of a 1.5 positive multiplier), allocated 10% against City and 90% against HJTA because HJTA was a CCP § 1021.5 “opposing party;” and (2) for litigation phase 2, $303,697 (the full ask) against City alone. That prompted appeals by the nonprofit and City.
On appeal, the Fifth District upheld the fee awards against City (finding its argument nonprofit was not entitled to fees was forfeited and flawed on the merits). However, it did find that HJTA was not an “opposing party” such that the allocation of fees against HJTA was not warranted, deciding that HJTA held no individualized direct interest but only was vindicating the rights of 800 members in Fresno who voted against Measure P (akin to vindicating generalized interests of all Fresno voters opposing Measure P). That left City holding the “whole bag” for the fee recovery.