However, No Significant Benefit of Statewide or Countywide Concern Was Vetted In Win.
Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in City of El Cajon v. County of San Diego Local Agency Formation Com., Case No. G045021 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2012) (unpublished), affirmed a lower court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees to City of El Cajon under California’s private attorney general statute in a complicated annexation battle against other parties. City did obtain an unpublished reversal of its annexation request, but the problem was that this unpublished decision only involved an application rather than an interpretation of the governing statute–which invoked the abuse of discretion rather than de novo standard of review. (As appellate practitioners know, the deferential abuse of discretion standard is much more tilted in favor of the decision rendered by the trial court, absent something unusual.) Here, the unpublished decision only reinforced prior law on territorial annexation/reorganization, with the City presenting a dearth of proof on how the reversal (an island exception) presented a statewide or even a countrywide concern. Simply put, this was a “one off” dispute, but not with any significant public benefit so as to qualify for a fee award under CCP § 1021.5. Fee denial affirmed, said Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam on behalf of a 3-0 panel
El Cajon