Narrowly Focusing On Plaintiff’s Personal Interest In Bringing Suit, Rather Than Significance Of Constitutional Due Process Rights Effectuated By Plaintiff’s Action, Was Error For Purposes Of Fee Determination Under Section 1021.5.
In our June 10, 2020 post, we discussed the case of Doe v. Regents of the University of Cal., Case No. B293153 (2d Dist., Div. 6), which was unpublished at the time. The case holds that determination of entitlement to Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 attorney fees requires looking at a broader scope of the effect of plaintiff’s actions – that fees cannot be denied merely because the primary effect of the litigation was to benefit the individual rather than the public. Although Doe brought a suit based on his own personal interest, his action resulted in significant benefit to all students at UC Santa Barbara, thereby entitling him to attorney fees under section 1021.5. Doe v. Regents of the University of Cal.was certified for publication on June 29, 2020.
BLOG UPDATE: The California Supreme Court denied review on September 30, 2020, but also ordered the decision depublished on its own motion such that the opinion no longer citable.